MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Unique unlockable prizes? How about defining some of those prizes? I would then be tempted to have a go!

Nov 13, 08 - 10:20 am Comment from: Wealthy Industrialite

Tell Mr. Creationist he sucks.

Nov 13, 08 - 10:23 am Comment from: Follower

I bet the developers got Mr. Stein involved by telling him their coding skills featured "intelligent design."

Nov 13, 08 - 10:33 am Comment from: shen

ah Ben. proof that a collection of trivial knowledge does not make you smart........

Nov 13, 08 - 10:40 am Comment from: The Dude

This is your chance to "Win, Ben, Stein's, MONEY".

The Dude abides.

Nov 13, 08 - 10:40 am Comment from: mike k.

i just watched the "Expelled" movie last night. It is interesting that a film devoted to debunking the theory of evolution spent no time whatsoever talking about fossil records. Since these seem to be strong evidence for natural selection and adaptation, it would have been good to tell us how ID explains the evidence differently.

The ID case rests on the absence of an adequate empirical account about the origin of organic life. ID presents a view about what caused that. Big Bang theory presents a competing view. ID does not present a competing theory about the transition from single-celled organisms to the diversity of species we see now. As such, it is not a competing complete scientific view.

If the goal of scientific education is to teach our best current explanatory paradigm then ID cannot be considered as something worth teaching.

Nov 13, 08 - 10:45 am Comment from: Horseman

It amazes me that an intelligent person such as Ben Stein can be so completely deluded and in such denial about the realities of science that it causes him to be inherently dishonest towards himself and others.

I see that Freedom of Speech & Expression has become conditional.

It's only a freedom if you're willing to put up with the BS from the people who can't stand you for your beliefs.

Grow up.
If you aren't interested in the app, don't buy it.
If you aren't interested in what Mr. Stein's beliefs are, don't listen.
Get over yourselves.

Nov 13, 08 - 10:50 am Comment from: Horseman

@sickofthis...

Hay, we're expressing ourselves!

Nov 13, 08 - 10:57 am Comment from: mike k.

the first amendment applies to government control of speech, not to the decisions of individuals or private institutions.

be prepared to be judged by others on the basis of the content of your speech. Arguing that ID is a rival scientific explanatory theory is risible, and will affect how others perceive you.

Your all a bunch of morons. Everyone knows that we were placed here by space creatures. We are nothing but an experimental petri dish. These aliens check on us every now and then, but the experiment was abandonded many years ago when the human evolved in the wrong direction. Rather than termninating the experiment, the Creators decided to let us run our course and see if we would self destruct. They "swing by" to check on us every now and then and use some of us for food when needed (missing people). So all of your are wrong and should take a chill pill and be thankful you arent space food.

...It's a Cookbook!

Nov 13, 08 - 11:25 am Comment from: Amazin1

I think Ming may be on to something!! Sure explains a lot of things. I suggest Ming start a religion centered around the stated theory. All he/she needs to do to get some cred is have a couple Hollywood types join and bingo they have themselves a tax deductible charity organization!

Here we go again:

When Darwin first proposed his theory, the most strident opposition came not from Christian fundamentalists but rather paleontologists. Why? Darwin was correct when he postulated that the fossil record would clearly demonstrate evolution. He stated that one would see “interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps.” He also knew that the fossil record was “perhaps the most obvious and serious objection” to his theory but figured that with more time and exploration, the fossil record would vindicate him. After 150 more years of digging, the record still opposes the basic tenets of evolution. The Paleontologists were right, the fossil record does not back up Darwinian postulations.

Now, since the fossil record still strongly argues against Darwinian evolution, scientists are abandoning classic Darwinian conjecture and have jumped to "Punctuated Equilibrium" as a way to try to salvage a Godless theory that is more in line with the fossil record. (no transitionary fossils) However, this 'new' theory strains credibility when we realize that the vast majority of mutations are harmful, undermining survival, or are neutral at best. Mutations almost never make a species better, but worse and have never made one species transform into a new species.

Darwin's Leap was that if minor variations in a species were multiplied over millions of years, it would stop being one species and start being another. There is plenty of evidence of the minor variations, but to this day the only evidence that one species changed into another is in artistic representation, not in the fossil record.

Keep trying.

Nov 13, 08 - 11:46 am Comment from: minime

it's amazing, the code for the game just "evolved" no intelligence was used.

The non-functional code is then picked up by Microsoft and they do whatever with it.

All of you who dare to question just shut up now! Our theories are not strong enough to withstand any scrutiny whatsoever.

Nov 13, 08 - 11:59 am Comment from: mike k.

transitional fossil evidence:

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

7over, just because you've been told by people that the fossil record doesn't back up evolution doesn't mean it's true.

There are many, many transitional fossils. Also, evolution, since it's a testable, scientific theory, actually makes predictions that can be tested. In one case, such a prediction was that there should be some sort of transitional lifeform that led to whales at a certain point in Earth's history. That point in history would have coincided with a certain rock layer. Paleontologists started looking in that rock layer, and sure enough, they eventually found a beautiful specimen of a mammal that was an obvious transitional form between land mammals and whales.

So again, just because someone tells you something doesn't make it so. I would expect you to look up what I just told you to confirm it. Just, do yourself a favor and look up actual scientific writings on it, not just what people do and don't tell you over on conservapedia...

Nov 13, 08 - 01:02 pm Comment from: TowerTone

if u don't vote 4 BS u r anti-semetic

Expelled is not explicitly about darwinism vs. intelligent design. That is used as the major example to illustrate the main thesis, which is that there is a lack of diverse thought in our education system. If you profess a belief that differs, even slightly, than the status quo, you are exiled.

That is far more important to our daily lives than arguments about where we came from.

Nov 13, 08 - 01:34 pm Comment from: mike k.

Expelled is not explicitly about darwinism vs. intelligent design. That is used as the major example to illustrate the main thesis, which is that there is a lack of diverse thought in our education system. If you profess a belief that differs, even slightly, than the status quo, you are exiled.

there's plenty of diversity in our educational system (in religion departments and departments devoted to the history of ideas) just not within science departments with respect to the question of what counts as valid science.

To argue that being against the teaching of ID as a competitor to the theory of evolution is to be against either freedom of expression or freedom of education is both false and dishonest.

To use an analogy, suppose you were in charge of hiring someone to work alongside you on your farm. You have the choice of hiring someone who thinks that decisions about when to plant the crops should be made on the basis of the season and the temperature and how long it has been since the soil was tilled etc. and someone who thinks we should consult whether the planet Venus is in the appropriate constellation for maximal fertility or not.

You would hire the first person because you think that what this person believes is more in line with your overall goals. It just doesn't really make sense to think that planetary location has anything to do with how well your crops will fare. I think that academia's widespread decision not to hire people working in ID is analogous.

@7over:

I find your lack of understanding of evolutionary theory disturbing. Please do some research on non-creationist websites, and read actual science books to learn some real science.

Secondly, you would be wise to do some actual scientific research on punctuated equilibrium. First, it was not just made up out of thin air to try to "save face" about the supposed non-existence of transitional fossils. It is an actual scientific theory proposed by Stephen J Gould that is (much to the surprise of creationists) backed by scientific observations!! Who would have thunk? I mean, don't those crazy scientists just keep throwing their crazy theories against the wall and see what sticks? Oh wait, that's creationists. And none of their ideas stick to the wall for more than a few seconds.

Last I checked, schools also don't teach theories about Unicorns, Pixies, or Phlogiston existing in science classrooms... does that mean they are being unfair and exclusionary about these things and should give them "equal time"?

Plus, how can you hire someone to teach biology who doesn't believe in evolution, when evolution underpins the vast majority (if not all) of modern biology? I'm pretty sure no one is being denied a position teaching English because they don't believe in evolution. Heck, my prof when I took history of psychology last year (at a liberal Canadian University) didn't seem to believe in evolution... or at least, she somehow managed to justify spending class time talking about how "science is as much of a religion as creationism" and how there were "problems" with evolution (the usual canards) and it should be taught as a "theory" rather than a "fact".

Nov 13, 08 - 02:13 pm Comment from: KingMel

@mike k.
Perhaps a series of floods?

Ben Stein's a big fat idiot.

I like Ben, and what he has to say about economics and trivia (I'm not always sure there is a difference), but he is incorrect if he is asserting that ID should be presented in science classes. It may be a correct account, and perhaps people should hear about it, but it belongs in a religion or philosophy course, not a biology course; it is not science. For a great book on evolution, see Neil Shubin's book "Your Inner Fish." For what looks like a great Trivia game, I will check-out Ben's new offering.

@currentinterest:

Thanks for the book recommendation, but I wouldn't expect any creationist to read it. Creationists are famous for only reading one book, the Bible. They don't read science books, research papers, or scientific journals. Hence, why they believe in creationism and do not accept evolution.

@ mike k.

the link you provided contained quite a few phrases like "may have", "probably" and "possibly". That sounds alot more like faith that concrete scientific fact. Just saying.

@ Aaron

Your statement is ridiculous. There are plenty of Creationists who hold PHD's in the sciences, and thus read more than just the Bible.

I'd recommend this book, which is a collection of 40 people, all of whom are extremely well accredited in their scientific fields and all who claim to be Chrisitians and thus believe in a Creator.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0890513767/ref=nosim/librarythin08-20

@ 7over,

You're a fool. I'm probably not the first one to tell you this. Your foolishness is not merely ignorance, it is deliberate stupidity, since you cling to your position in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Evolution is a fact, and your belief in your imaginary friend has no bearing on reality.

Have a nice day.

-jcr

"I see that Freedom of Speech & Expression has become conditional."

Not at all. Stein and his creationist buddies are entirely free to spew their nonsense, and rational people are free to call it nonsense.

Criticism isn't censorship.

-jcr

Wow, my post has been deleted by MDN. They (he) must be extra sensitive after the huge loss the repubs had last week. Maybe if MDN stuck to Apple news - and not far-right politics - it wouldn't get so much (stuff).

@just a dude:

You have to understand that science never really "proves" anything. There are a lot of "may haves" and "probably"s in science, simply because we don't know everything yet. But these may haves and probably at least have some modicum of evidence to support them, unlike ID which has nothing. A favorite tactic of creationists is to equate science with religion to give the illusion that they are on equal footing. They clearly aren't.

Secondly, your book proves nothing. I find an interesting dichotomy when debating with creationists. The person backing evolution will always back their arguments by providing evidence, whereas the creationists will just sit back and say "nuh-uh!" and then trot out a very short list of scientists who believe in ID. This goes to show the evidence for evolution speaks for itself. I don't have to say that I accept evolution because Richard Dawkins does. I can say I accept evolution because the evidence supports it.

Nov 13, 08 - 03:03 pm Comment from: since1985

Kirk, you can't have it both ways. You say evolution is "a testable, scientific theory".

Evolution is not testable as normal science. True science starts with a theory from which you can put in a "test tube" and prove it. Likewise, someone who disagrees with your theory can put it in a "test tube" and disprove it. The law of gravity is science. It is TESTABLE. You can concretely prove the law of gravity exists, and as science, if the law of gravity is not true, than a dissenter should be able to disprove it also.

Evolution cannot be proved nor can it be disproved. No one has ever lived to witness evolution. You may believe in evolution based on the "evidence", but then evolution still remains a theory and since it is not "testable", then it is much closer to philosophy. And just like in philosophy, how you interpret "evidence" first depends upon your world view.

The problem in my estimation is when either side of the evolution issue presents it as absolute fact -- when there is no way that any one of us can prove / disprove evolution or prove / disprove creation -- and then becomes closed minded about evaluating the alternatives. If you "believe" that the theory of evolution is fact but then knock down any opposing viewpoints as ignorant and not scientific or worthy to be considered, then your evolution theory has become a religious belief, no different than those who believe in creation.

@ Aaron

Firstly, I never claimed the book I referenced proved anything, sorry if I mislead you. I was merely responding to your statement:

"Thanks for the book recommendation, but I wouldn't expect any creationist to read it. Creationists are famous for only reading one book, the Bible. They don't read science books, research papers, or scientific journals. Hence, why they believe in creationism and do not accept evolution."

I think you'd discover in this book that there are quite a few rational people with scientific minds who have far more to say than "nuh-uh!" I certainly wasn't implying that I believe something just because these guys say they believe it. I was merely pointing out that you were dismissing anyone who is a creationist as some sort of ignoramus who only reads the Bible, which is far from true.

Secondly, whenever this particular discussion erupts anywhere I'm always interested to hear the evolutionist take on where everything in the universe came from?

Respectfully,

Just a dude

Some of us know beyond a doubt that there is intelligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Nov 13, 08 - 03:34 pm Comment from: since1985

The first cell capable of sexual reproduction -- with what did it reproduce?

@since1985:

Your post merely illustrates the fact that you don't understand anything about the scientific process. Evolution is indeed "testable". In fact, something does not have to be directly observable to be testable. Can you see gravity? If you watch an object fall to the floor you are not actually observing the force of gravity, but rather it's effects. Can you actually see the electromagnetic force? No, it's invisible. But we know it exists because it produces observable effects. That's science lesson #1.

Science lesson #2. Many aspects of evolution have been directly observed. Microevolution has been directly observed many times in the laboratory. We've even witnessed the introduction of new genes that provide new benefits to the organism (aka nylon eating bacteria, among others). What we have not observed directly is macroevolution. But, we have observed the effects of macroevolution.

Case in point: Apes and other primates have 28 chromosomes (2 pairs of 14). We have 26 (two pairs of 13). Evolution predicts that we share a common ancestor with Apes and other primates. To test this, we have to find out what happened to the other chromosome pair. Behold the wonders of gene sequencing. We have discovered that our human chromosome #2 is in fact 2 chromosomes that have fused together! And we've even mapped this "lost" chromosome to chimp chromosome #13. Now, if we had sequenced our genes and NOT found a fused chromosome, common ancestry would have been proven FALSE. But, we did find it!

The fact is, evolution can and has pretty much been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence fits, and is congruent among dozens of fields of science. The moment a creationist states that macroevolution can "never" be proven because it cannot be directly observed only proves their complete lack of understanding of the scientific process.

@just a dude:

I know there are a handful of scientists who believe ID. I never said that wasn't the case. What I said was the overwhelming majority of believers in ID only believe it because that's what their pastor says is true. They don't read science books or journals and evaluate the evidence for themselves.

Lastly, evolutionary biology makes no attempt to explain how the universe came to be. That's a question for physicists and astronomers. The fact is we don't know yet. The big bang is the scientifically accepted explanation of how the universe started, and has much evidentiary support. Now what happened or existed before the big bang is anyone's guess. I don't presume to know something I don't know, which is exactly what the creationist does when they try to postulate the idea of a creator. You don't *know* what happened or existed before the big bang anymore than I do. The evolutionist is just the only one being honest. And I don't think bronze age desert nomads had access to any insights that we don't have access to now.

The fact that we don't know what or who came before the universe existed has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. They are two completely different questions with completely different and probably unrelated answers. So please do not try to muddy the waters by trying to imply they are somehow related.

I'm going to jump the gun and assume you are next going to ask me how life began in the first place (first self-replicating cells). The answer to that question is also an unknown. We have taken small steps through the Miller-Ureys experiment, as well as the discovery of naturally occurring RNA proteins. Over time, as we learn more, I'm sure the answer will become apparent. But please don't confuse abiogenesis with evolution. Two different questions, two different answers.

Nov 13, 08 - 04:02 pm Comment from: since1985

We always laugh at the concept of "intelligent" design, but what about the concept of "intelligent" evolution?

How is evolution so intelligently predictive that it knows to develop a second eye -- for the purpose of a being to be able to judge depth of field -- and go through generations upon generations of mutant development of a second eye and the placement of a two eye system until it works? And why isn't there a substantial amount of evidence of these transitional forms showing these horrible mutations? If evolution is fact, these kinds of mutations should be all over the fossil record.

How is evolution so intelligently predictive that it knows to develop wings and go through generations upon generations of mutations of non-functional appendages, all the while predicting it needs to grow feathers, knowing they are needed to fly? How does evolution know about the dynamics of flying in advance of creating appendages to do so? And again, where is the multitude of fossils displaying all of these hit-and-miss attempts of developing wings?

These are my observations, not someone elses.

Nov 13, 08 - 04:18 pm Comment from: since1985

Aaron, you are incorrect. Gravity is testable. Gravity can be tested to be proved or disproved. If it was still only a theory, I could not prove it nor disprove it. Let's drop you from a plane and see if you still think gravity's not testable.

Aaron, microevolution is fact. You confuse the theory of evolution debate because you use the word microevolution because it contains "evolution" in it. And you deceptively give it as an example that it somehow lends credence to the theory of macroevolution.

Microevolution has nothing to do with macroevolution, macroevolution being the theory of the evolution of species. Microevolution at best can be described as the natural variance within the genetic code.

For example, within a human's genetic code are all the variances to be black, white, tall, short. But while a couple may birth a human that can be a very tall human being, that is not proof that the theory of evolution works on a small scale, it is within the genetic code for a human to be that tall. But the couple will NEVER birth a human that is 72' tall. It is just not in the genetic code. And they certainly will never birth a cat.

While it may be popular to laud microevolution as proof of the theory of the evolution of the species happening on a small scale, microevolution is nothing more than the acceptable variances within a species already programmed in the genetic code.

Aaron, I laugh at your closing argument:
"The fact is, evolution can and has pretty much been proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

'can and has pretty much been proven beyond a reasonable doubt'? Which is it, Aaron? Is it that it can be proven but hasn't? Or that it pretty much has been proven but not quite? Hard to say it's absolute fact, huh? Sounds like there's some reasonable doubt in your very own sentence!

@since1985:

OK... please go back and read what I said. I said gravity is not OBSERVABLE. Of course it is testable!!! You said science can only prove things that are directly observable. You are wrong. Observable and testable are not the same thing. You can test things that you cannot observe.

Second, you're the one who needs the science education. I know microevolution is different than macroevolution, but they are not all that different! Microevolution are small changes in an organism within a short period of time. Macroevolution is simply an accumulation of microevolutionary changes over longer periods of time that result in speciation. Scientists are actually in the process of observing speciation in fish by taking frequent genetic samples from a lake where the fish are on the verge of speciation. Once this process is complete we will have a complete genetic record of speciation. Something which creationists argue doesn't happen.

I like how you completely ignore my examples of chromosome #2. Typical creationist tactic, ignore evidence, stick your fingers in your ear and go LA LA LA!

I'm not even going to entertain your ridiculous example of people giving birth to a cat. You've only accomplished exposing your complete ignorance of evolutionary theory.

Now my last statement was simply a rebuttal to your own comment that evolution is not possible to prove. I said it was possible and has been proven to anyone who wants to look at the evidence for what it is, and not whether it jives with 2000 year old jewish fairy tales.

Anyway, I'm not going to dignify your ignorance with further rebuttals. It's clear you have no understanding of evolution or the scientific process. And attempts to educate you will prove fruitless because you don't want to accept it. Which of course you are free to do. But if you are going to try to refute evolutionary theory, I suggest that first you make an effort to actually understand what it is that you are attempting to discredit, and also come up with some new arguments that have not been refuted thousands of times over by the scientific community.

Aaron, I think that if you make a study a religion you will find that most "creationists" fail to even read the bible. Or at least they generally seem ignorant of it in conversation.

Nov 13, 08 - 06:05 pm Comment from: since1985

Aaron, you have totally convoluted the intent of my original statement, and we're now debating semantics. So let me rephrase it for you. Evolution is a theory. It is a theory because it has not been proven. It has not been proven because it cannot be put in a test tube and ACTUALLY OBSERVED one way or the other. Do you know anyone that has personally witnessed an evolution from one species to another?

Let's go back to the gravity example. For fun, let's call Gravity a theory, the Theory of Gravity, and I have a theory about how gravity works and want to make it a law. Let's say you don't believe that gravity exists. So we disagree and have a debate. With traditional science, we can put my gravity theory to the test TO PROVE IT or DISPROVE IT, one way of another. How are we going to prove it or disprove it? To continue with our former example, we push you out of a plane.

At the end of the test, it WAS PROVEN gravity works. We now have the Law of Gravity. No matter how hard the Religion of Infinite Flotation wants to believe in the Theory of Intelligent Liftoff, they will never be able to push anyone else off a plane and disprove gravity. The Law of Gravity being TRUE, TRADITIONAL SCIENCE, they can push as many people of planes as they want TO DISPROVE IT, BUT THEIR TESTS WILL ALWAYS FAIL.

Can you "see" gravity? Of course not. Is gravity "observable"? ABSOLUTELY! We pushed you off the plane and you landed hard!

There are many examples of proven scientific facts that we do not see but are observable. The problem with evolution is that we can neither see it NOR OBSERVE IT!

You may think you observe it, because you have "evidence" for it, but no one actually has seen a transition from one species to another happen and the fossil record is very slim -- the evidence you think you do have is not conclusive; it at least takes some leaps of the imagination. There is also evidence of spontaneous creation, but no one has ever observed spontaneous creation, so I doubt one could convince you that such evidence means that creation has been observed as you state with your evidence.

TRUE TRADITIONAL SCIENCE allows one who counters your hypothesis to be able to test it himself to disprove it. EVOLUTION CANNOT BE TESTED IN THIS REGARD. NO ONE HAS OBSERVED EVOLUTION, so no one can prove it or disprove it. All one can do on either side of the aisle is to EXAMINE the EVIDENCE according to the THEORIES and come to his or her own conclusions.

The intent of my original post was to state the problem with the "assumption" that evolution is an absolute fact and the castigation of anyone who disagrees with the theory and evaluates the evidence differently as being ignorant fools. It is a closed-minded and non-scientific mentality.

Nov 13, 08 - 06:27 pm Comment from: since1985

shen, you could say the same thing about most everyone that accepts "evolution". Most of them can't tell you why or only spew off a few things they have been told or read in a book. It is rare to find someone who has honestly studied both sides of the issue. I am appalled by how many people I talk to who don't know of all the holes in the theory. And it all starts with what we were taught as children with errors that are still in textbooks. There are old "proofs of evolution" that have been debunked by the scientific community itself long ago which are still in school textbooks today. We're talking about overt lies in textbooks being taught to children that even the evolution science community themselves don't believe today.

To all readers:

I'm not going to dignify since1985's ignorance with continued responses. You cannot effectively have a debate about a scientific issue with someone who understands nothing about the scientific process, nor the particular issue they are attempting to refute.

I encourage anyone interested in the theory of evolution to pick up a good book, research paper, or scientific journal and study the evidence for yourself. Read about the various transitional forms we have discovered that document the transition from fish to reptiles and dinosaurs to birds. Read about the genetic evidence such as chromosome #2, endogenous retroviruses, and the observation of new beneficial genes forming in bacteria. There are literally mountains of evidence in support of evolution. Please do the research for yourself, and I am certain any rational human being will come to the same conclusion that I have. Evolution is fact.

@Aaron
I'm not going to dignify since1985's ignorance with continued responses. You cannot effectively have a debate about a scientific issue with someone who understands nothing about the scientific process, nor the particular issue they are attempting to refute.

I encourage anyone interested in the theory of evolution to pick up a good book, research paper, or scientific journal and study the evidence for yourself. Read about the various transitional forms we have discovered that document the transition from fish to reptiles and dinosaurs to birds. Read about the genetic evidence such as chromosome #2, endogenous retroviruses, and the observation of new beneficial genes forming in bacteria. There are literally mountains of evidence in support of evolution. Please do the research for yourself, and I am certain any rational human being will come to the same conclusion that I have. Evolution is fact.
You need lighten up, dude.
Since 1985 is correct.How so you may ask, well first you need to answer his first argument. Is evolution fact as you state or just a theory.
It seems to me all your answers deflect or avoid this simple question. You even went so far as to misinterprete his use of Observable to try and avoid answering his main argument.
He is absolutly correct that if it isn't Observable-ie-:mesurable or verifiable than you cannot call it fact.
That My friend is called science.
Seems to me that you are the unreasonable one here.

@Macdaddy comes home:

Evolution is a scientific theory. I never denied that. You have to understand that in science, the term theory has a somewhat different meaning. When most people hear the term theory, they usually think "hey, I came up with this crazy theory while I was sitting on the toilet". In science, the term theory essentially means an explanation for a body of evidence. In science, the term theory does not mean that the idea has not been fully proven yet, or that it is does not have enough evidence to support it. I'm not deflecting or avoiding anything. The fact is, since1985 does not understand what a scientific theory really is if he believes that by calling evolution a theory it means it is unproven. Gravity is a scientific theory. There is also atomic theory (we cannot observe atoms). It does not mean that scientists still aren't sure that gravity exists, or that atoms exist and interact. Let me repeat: in science a "theory" is often regarded as scientific fact because the body of evidence explained by the theory is conclusive.

As far as misinterpreting the term observable, you also have to understand there are direct and indirect observations. Creationists like to say that only directly observable phenomenon can be considered scientific fact, and that is simply not true. There are many things in the universe we cannot directly observe, yet we know they exist through indirect observation. For example, you cannot directly observe a magnetic field because it is an invisible force. Yet you can take a negatively charged and positively charged magnet, and watch the effect of the magnetic field as the two magnets come together. Concerning macroevolution, we do not have the life span to directly observe a speciation event. However, we can determine that speciation does indeed happen through various indirect observations such as genetic sequencing, the fossil record, and geographical species distribution throughout the planet.

So as you can see, it's impossible to have a debate with someone who doesn't have a solid understanding of scientific terms and is ignorant of 150 years of scientific observation and experimentation that consistently confirms evolutionary theory.

I'm still waiting for a creationists explanation of why we have a fused chromosome, which fits perfectly with the theory of common descent. How about the 100,000+ instances of endogenous retroviral DNA patterns located in our genome that match perfectly with the retroviral DNS patterns in the chimpanzee genome? The problem with ID is it offers no explanation whatsoever to any scientific question other than "God did it". Which, answers nothing. That is why it is not recognized by the scientific community. It's a worthless theory that does nothing to further scientific knowledge.

since1985 and just a dude. You don't get it. You can never prove *anything*. Science can only disprove something. It can *never* *ever* prove it. Because there is always another explanation that may not be (currently) testable or that we haven't though of yet.

This is a basic tenet of science. I have a PhD and was part of a team that won a Nobel prize a couple years ago, so I know what I am talking about.

Let's say you meet George Bush in the White House. How do you know it's George Bush? Maybe it's an imposter. So how do we test this theory? We could ask for his driver's license....but that can be faked. We could ask his wife (if that woman who claims to be his wife is really his wife), but she might be in on it. We could do a DNA test and compare it to other Bush family members...but maybe the imposter is a Martian and Martians can perfectly imitate human DNA.

Can we *prove* it's George? No. We can, however, use a number of reasonable tests/experiments to support that conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt, but you can never *prove* it is George with 100% exact certainty. Go watch the Matrix if you're still not convinced.

Evolution is as well proven as scientific facts/theories such as the theory of the atom, the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, and the cause of malaria. The fossil record is there, the laboratory record is there. Just because that's not noted in the Bible or a creationist web site doesn't make those facts go away.

Of course, there is one thing science can't disprove by definition, and that's the existence of an all-powerful being. That's why Faith and Science are completely compatible with each other.

Perhaps one of you could explain why the Biblical description of the Great Flood doesn't mention panda bears, polar bears, kangaroos, gorillas, penguins, snow leopards, Pacific salmon...or any other species not known to the men (yes, men) who wrote it? Or quasars, galaxies, a heliocentric solar system, 8 planets (+ one minor one), electrons, bacteria, viruses, atoms, DNA, calculus, the number of continents, the nature of comets...or any one FACT not already known to the world? Actually, that's rhetorical question.

Getting back to the topic of the article....I can not in good faith (or Faith) pay money to a man whose utterances serve to undermine what I teach in the science classroom every day.

Has anything in the Bible been proven wrong?

How long is God's day?

From my days in Pfizer's research labs in Groton, CT.

BS = bullshite

MS = moreshite

PhD = pile shite highest and deepest

yes, I am a bullshiter (with honors)