Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

What does that Darwin know anyway?

REBECCA DUBE

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 8:51 PM EST 19/06/07

If your picture of creationists is limited to barefoot hillbillies and Republican U.S. presidential candidates, it's time for your thinking to evolve ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Aslan On the Island from VanIsle, Canada writes: Oh God! (not that I'm religous)...how depressing.
  2. john wardle from vcr, Canada writes: LOL @ Ontario!!

    Why didn't your god bring you the Stanley cup this year?
  3. Robert Lepage from Canada writes: Mr. Juby, have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  4. Just the Truth from Canada writes: Science is nothing but facts and theories that seek to explain those facts. Such theories include evolution, heliocentrism, gravity (Einstein's own theory challenges the traditional Newtonian theory . . . see how this stuff works?), quantum mechanics, nuclear fission . . . the list goes on and on.

    'Creationism' is a prettified version of the history of the Universe as described in the first version of Creation set forth in the Book of Genesis (at odds with the second version of Creation later in Genesis . . . a conflict which can be evaded if -- as the New International Version of the Bible does -- you simply change the tense of a verb in Chapter 2 of Genesis . . . presto! like magic!).

    'Intelligent design' is a seemingly innocuous term that is the latest attempt to pretend that 'Creationism' is somehow 'scientific'. Taken literally, though . . . 'intelligent design' could cover ANY religious silliness about the 'origins of the Universe'. So there could be . . . a Shinto Intelligent Design Story, a Chippewa Intelligent Design Story, a Hindu Intelligent Design Story, etc. . . . And each one would have as much value as any of the others, since all are based on religious silliness.
  5. Just the Truth from Canada writes: Continuing . . . .

    The first version of Creation in Genesis has 'God' creating the Universe in six days. NOT 'six long periods of time, we don't know how long those periods were, so we can fudge this a lot and pretend that this version of Creation somehow comports with science,' but six DAYS (the Hebrew word used is 'yom,' which means -- you guessed it -- 'day'.

    If people want to believe this or that religious myth in order to get them through the day or explain stuff that they can't understand, then: fine. (For that matter, if people need to go to personal therapists every week to be told how important they are, how 'the world just doesn't understand how wonderful you are,' etc., then: fine.) Just don't pretend that these myths are somehow 'the equal to' scientific theories. Because they aren't.
  6. Marc Cadieux from Peterborough, Canada writes: 'The poll found 42 per cent of Canadians agree that dinosaurs and humans co-existed on earth'

    Honestly, four out of ten people believe this? I have only known a single person in my life to be in this camp. I have very little trust in the accuracy of this poll.
  7. Eric MacKinnon from Canada writes: The article writer's assertion that: ' the evidence for evolution, such as fossil records dating back millions of years, is clear and persuasive . . . Even though evolution is a strong theory with overwhelming scientific support . . .'. demonstrates an uncritical acceptance of the unfounded assertions of much of the evolutionist camp. Evolutionary proponents would like to believe that 'science' is on their side, but increasing numbers of scientists are rejecting Darwinism as an adequate means of explaining the diversity of life on earth. This is to be expected from those who honestly pursue the question of origins with an open mind and not with atheistic, materialist presuppositions of reality. One's interpretation of the evidences is key (as is the evidence one chooses to ignore). It is good to see that many are still willing to embrace the very viable alternative of creationism. The article writer would profit from doing some broader reading - he might find the evidence for evolution not so 'overwhelming' after all.
  8. Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: Well, I guess I'm glad the comments so far haven't been overwhelmingly caustic. To me, it's never really mattered how we got to where we are. I think you're really in tune with your beliefs, you're OK with the Creation story in Genesis not matching up with science. What was God going to do, explain the Big Bang and mitochondrial DNA to Man circa 4000 BC? God knew his audience. God also gave us big brains, and the ability, above all other life forms, to examine the world and beyond. Why is it that things like the speed of light, the rest mass of an electron, the permittivity of free space, and a half-dozen or so other fundamental constants line up in our universe that permit not only life, but matter itself to exist? That's religion for you, totally at harmony with science. I wish more people agreed with me (don't we all ;) ). I say we're either a purposeful creation, or one heck of a coincidence!
  9. A reader from Toronto, Canada writes: To add to what JUST THE TRUTH FROM CANADA expressed, I'd like to say:

    Every individual is free to believe in whatever s/he want to believe in.

    No individual or community has the right to dictate to any other individual or community what to believe in.

    It is in their disagreement with this principle that the Christian right and the Islamists become intellectually indistinguishable from one another to me.

    On a practical scale, I recognize that the Islamists' more frequent recourse to suicide bombings and terrorism make theirs a particularly virulent strain of anti-intellectualism and anti-liberty religionists. That is why we need these no-fly lists, unfortunately.
  10. Not An Idiot from Toronto, Canada writes: Eric McKinnon wrote: 'an increasing numbers of scientists are rejecting Darwinism as an adequate means of explaining the diversity of life on earth.'

    Oh really? Who are these 'scientists?' The proof for evolution lies all around us. It is virtually impossible to deny. The proof for creationism is...where? How about NO WHERE. There is no proof for the creation of the universe by a divine being.

    The ultimate question - where did life originate - has yet to be answered. This does not mean there is not a scientific answer. It just means we haven't found it yet. The sun did not revolve around the earth until we discovered otherwise.

    Read some Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker, the God Delusion - to get a better understanding of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. Creationism is not viable at all. It is pure invention.
  11. R Evans from Virden, MB, Canada writes: What blows me away is that there IS overwhelming evidence to support Creation. Those without blinders, those with eyes to see, have uncovered the real truth.

    I find it amusing that Just the Truth needs to wrangle so eloquently with his truth to get his point across.

    The TRUTH is in His points, clearly laid out. We are just now, as humans, starting to see how science begins to point to God, as He said it would in His Word.

    Absolute truth is unaffected by evolutionists. Only evolutionists are affected by their beliefs.
  12. gordon davies from Victoria B.C., Canada writes: To follow the books of a oral history of written by a committee might have the odd bits right , but to take it all as the complete truth , primes you for the question of the bridge I have for sale.
  13. D F from Regina, Canada writes: I get a laugh out of the creationists. To a creationist, geophysics, paleontology, astrophysics, geology, all of these sciences and many more must be wrong if one is to hold their views. Yet they have no trouble using the technology these sciences have discovered. To think that university educated people can hold these insane beliefs scares the pants off me. And some of them run countries! I had one fellow tell me that his God covered the entire earth in water from Noahs' flood and then magically made all that water disappear. What a crock!! Maybe if we ridicule them enough they will at least be quiet.
  14. Zorgon Petipnik from writes: Foolish earth people. God did not create humans - we did - and it was not all that difficult. Next time we will get it right and leave out the element of stupidity that we initially thought amusing. Prepare for annihilation.
  15. Rtab 2 from Canada writes: It seems to me that a lot of confusion is generated by the word 'theory', as in the 'theory of evolution'. Let's face it, there is an enormous body of documented, empirical evidence--objective fact--that forms the basis of the 'theory' in question. There may be gaps in a complete understanding of what happened in natural history (as its time-line is sufficiently long to boggle the imagination) but the notion that evolution is merely a theoretical concept, that it is somehow, at some fundamental level, merely a question of belief, is to misunderstand what is meant by the scientific term, 'theory'. The Greek root of the word theory means observable, which is what evolution is. Creationism is not and is therefore of a completely different order of thought, an order devoted to speculation, conjecture and wishful thinking. In other words the theory of evolution doesn't require your belief in it, as evolutionary processes exist whether or not you believe in the 'theory'. Creationism, on the other hand, disappears like a puff of smoke if all who profess to believe in it stop doing so.
  16. F/A josquin from van, Canada writes: You know, simply because you are a god-believer is not enough of a reason now, for automatic respect.

    Your old testament god , in the words of professor Dawkins 'is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak;a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.'

    opps, perhaps he did create this lovely world of ours-----in his image.
  17. F/A josquin from van, Canada writes: Oh great and mighty Zargon, spare me, I sing your Zargonic praise songs every wednesday morning as you instructed.
  18. Dwight Fulmore from Courtenay, Canada writes: There are two religions, two worldviews which are presuppositions to any further talk of science or views regarding facts. One is the view which accepts God as creator and the other which is secular evolutionary humanism. This is a religion which cannot under any circumstance explain any phenomenon by means of supernatural means. Hence facts which seem obvious to those who believe in creation cannot be facts, they just aren't explained.....yet. Take the first life form for instance. How does matter arrange itself in an extremely complex way by itself? Well if given enough time...... NO !Thousands of scientists would love to create life in the test tube from non-life but they can't. It is too complex. Yet, given enough time and chance.... This is what we are pinning the whole theory of evolution on. Wake up, look at the facts without your humanistic blinders on and you will have only one option, to acknowledge we are part of a fantastic and intricate design. Oh, and dinosaurs are not that old. Why would there be soft red blood cells in a dino that is 60 million years old? Come on, please, really.
  19. Dana Dana from Canada writes: In other news science has just confirmed that the earth really is a flattened disc and not a globe as we've been led to believe.
  20. Just the Truth from Canada writes: R Evans: . . . You may be interested to know that there is a six-day Creation Story in the Koran, too. See 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, 25:59, 50:38, 57:4 therein. It is not just a Jewish and Christian myth, but an Islamic myth, too.

    BTW . . . which Creation Myth do YOU like ? And why ? Just asking.

    Also, what is this 'real evidence' that supports whichever Creation Myth you like ? Wanna share with the group ?
  21. F/A josquin from van, Canada writes: Oh Dwight, if only you people would just leave that corny belief system at home. But no, you have to peddle it at my door, you have to pump it in schools, you have to ban books and attempt to crush dissent. In short, you feel the need, as every fundamentalist does, to force- feed your 'truth' to everyone.

    And don't dare come back with 'creationism is a science'.

    It isn't----period. It is a belief.
  22. R C from Toronto, Canada writes: Interesting regional variation. The G&M forums seem to be filled with comments about bible thumping backward westerners, but Ontario has the lowest rate of belief in evolution. I have limited faith in these polls, but one could pause to consider the typical stereotypes, and how much is based on belief and not evidence.
  23. F/A josquin from van, Canada writes: Again, the words of Dawkins 'Could we, by training and practice, emancipate ourselves from Middle Earth, tear off our black burka, and achieve some sort of intuitive-as well as mathematical- understanding of the very small, the very large, and the very fast? I genuinely don't know the answer, but I am thrilled to be alive at at time when humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding. Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits.'

    The last paragraph of his 'THE GOD DELUSION'
  24. GlynnMhor of Skywall, Azeroth from Canada writes: This is appallingly depressing evidence of the failure of our education system to teach.
  25. grover station from Hamilton, Canada writes: God created evolution, next question please.
  26. JC perfide from Paris, France writes:
    The creationist says to God: You shall exist!
    Then God says: I am not sure, call me on Monday!
  27. Richard Daystrom from Toronto, Canada writes: Yeah but at least our kids have good self-esteem because no one fails in school anymore.
  28. S Onosson from Winnipeg, MANITOBA, Canada writes: There are really two viewpoints represented, and it's not evolution vs. creation. Some people believe that we can KNOW what happened thousands of years ago and why the universe exists. Others recognize the impossibility of KNOWING this, and are prepared to settle for coming up with THEORIES which are explanatory constructs, and can be disproven over time if they are 'badly built'. I for one realize that I can never KNOW anything that happened before my lifetime, no matter what book I read by whichever divine authority, so I settle for using my own intelligence to judge the matter for myself.
  29. F/A josquin from van, Canada writes: I am sorry (a little) for my caustic approach to god-believers. I am simply pooped out discussing this with them. It always leads to one and only one dead end, and the discussion crashes.

    In other words, there is no discussion, they 'know', and I have never cottoned to a 'knower' of anything. If you want a good chat about life, love and grand questions, sit down.

    If you show up with the 'good book' shove off.
  30. Austin Powers from Canada writes: The 'big' question few seem to discuss is what exactly is 'God'?

    Is God the big, bearded dude in the clouds who listened to the prayers of reality show participants and helps them prevail in their artificial crises? Or, is God the sum-total of the mechanisms behind how the Universe functions - the 'unifying theory of everything'?

    Personally, I don't believe in the former. However, I am open to the latter. The closest thing that I have ever come to a 'religious experience' was watching an episode of Carl Sagan's Cosmos series - can't remember the exact eposide, but the feeling was intense nevertheless. The theory of evolution does not conflict with this interpretation of God - it actually complements it.
  31. Justin Kase from Victoria, Canada writes: I am perplexed at the lack of intellectual debate on these G&M forums. Most comments would fit well at the National Enquirer forum or maybe even the Toronto Sun forums...if they existed. Was not aware how many rednecks we have in Canada nor that they actually read the G&M. In case you think I consider mysefl intellectually superior in some way, nothing could be further from the truth. I love reading what people have to say in the hope of learning from them and perhaps getting smarter in the process. Maybe smart people are too smart to comment on these forums.

    Just wondering
  32. Somewhere off in the big blue sky from Canada writes: I guess the larger number of % Non-Evolution believers corresponds to the higher number of Conservative Party of Canada MPs in Ottawa these days?
  33. F/A josquin from van, Canada writes: In Sagan's words ( I think)

    'We are the stuff of stars'
  34. Robert Sohn from Toronto, Canada writes: For all Evolution Theory supporters, you think you know and understand all the facts. What most of you are doing is to regurgitate what you have heard. How about, instead of speaking what you have heard, try to research and study evolutionary 'evidences' in detail. Also, research the 'evidences' against (yes there are many such evidences) Evolution Theory.
  35. Just the Truth from Canada writes: Robert Sohn: . . . You state 'there are many such evidences [sic]' against Evolution Theory.

    So . . . Why do you fail to cite them ? Bear in mind that comics authored by Jack Chick do NOT 'count'.

    Let me repeat the question above, and ask YOU for a response: Which Creation Myth do YOU like ? And why ? Just asking.

    Also, what is this 'real evidence' that supports whichever Creation Myth you like ? Wanna share with the group ?
  36. A reader from Toronto, Canada writes: What gets ME about the 'Bible crowd' is that MOST don't even read their Bible. For example, the King James version of the Bible includes hundreds of 'changes' and 'new texts' that King James literally commissioned or wrote himself to REPLACE what he REMOVED from the Bible he'd been raised with. Now, unless you are willing to elevate a British monarch to the status of deity, this historical FACT pretty much cancels out any notion that the King James Bible was 'divinely inspired' or - more bizarre still! - written by God.

    The Catholic Bible has been similarly changed and remodelled over the years.

    Darwin, by the way, didn't claim to KNOW much; he POSITED the THEORY of evolution and nothing more. As far as theories go, Darwin's is probably far closer to the truth than any of Freud's theories, for example. Sigmund Freud and his unproven theories have probably caused more damage to the western world than anything else in the past two centuries. By and large, Darwin (and Havelock Ellis, whose theories of evolution Darwin essentially stole) have been proven to have been 'on the right track.'
  37. Chris Yang from Canada writes: interesting... I've never met any creationists actually. But the percentage of people with misconceptions about evolution is astounding. Would it kill people to visit the ROM and/or flip open their laptop and type in 'Wikipedia'?
  38. John T. from Canada writes: First, critical thinking has never been a sin. It is a virtue and a blessing, given to humans by God or by evolution or by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if you prefer. It doesn't matter where we got it, but if life has any meaning it is essential to use this gift.

    Second, willful stupidity in the name of God is not a virtue. It is a sin, a sin against any meaningful concept of God, and against humanity.

    Third, as someone who was brought up with religious faith, and who has been a churchgoer for his entire life, it was made extremely clear to me by the time I was four years old that much of the Bible is allegorical, and that this is what made it relevant, at least to the extent that it could be considered so. If this is not an impossible leap of logic for a four-year-old, I fail to understand how so many supposed intelligent adults don't get it.

    Lastly, I guess that there's always been a segment of society that held these fundamentalist views. The difference is that they used to keep their views to themselves, no doubt from a rightfully-earned sense that they didn't know enough to comment on things they didn't understand. No different, really, from me not commenting on brain surgery because I've not studied neurology.
  39. Paul Kruger from Vernon, Canada writes: What a slanted set of questions for those of us who believe that we are part of God's creation. How about simply 'Do you believe that God created us?' If that was the question, the 'creationist numbers' would have been way higher. Anyhow, what was funny was seeing how many evolutionists believe in something they do not even remotely understand. I guess that's called 'Faith'.
  40. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: A reader from Toronto, Canada writes: By and large, Darwin (and Havelock Ellis, whose theories of evolution Darwin essentially stole) have been proven to have been 'on the right track.'

    Let's see...Darwin proposed his original theory in 1858. The Descent of Man was published in 1871. Havelock Ellis was born in 1859...WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?????????
  41. Michael Manning from Mississauga, Canada writes: Marc Cadieux from Peterborough, Canada writes: 'Honestly, four out of ten people believe [that dinosaurs and humans co-existed]? . . . I have very little trust in the accuracy of this poll.'

    Agreed. I can count on my opposible thumbs the number of people I've met that believed in a fundamentalist interpretation of Creation. This poll's sample must be skewed to find 26% of Ontarians believed in the Biblical Creation myth, and I hang about with some pretty religious people.

    In my mind I see two pollsters with clipboards standing outside a Pentacostal church interviewing people within earshot of the pastor.

    Methinks this is that magical '20th time' that pollsters fear. ('This poll is accurate 19 times out of 20.')
  42. Douglas Bray from Peterborough, Canada writes: Oh, enough of this dinosaur vs. monotheistic claptrap. Everyone knows that the Gods evolved step for step with humans.
  43. carol c from Tronna, ON, Canada writes: I admit I don't know much about creationist theory. I would be curious to know what they think of the fossil record, the fact that the great apes share most of our DNA, etc. Also we can watch the evolutionary process happen - antibiotic resistant bacteria for instance is a clear case of it. If the simplest forms of life follow this rule, why do the more complex forms of life not follow it? Or from a creationist standpoint did God create humans and then allow evolution to run it's course? Or is God in charge of evolution? I'm curious about this.
  44. A V from Canada writes: Margin of error? Confidence level? 51% and 53% are awfully close, especially with samples of around 1000 for each survey. Also, what was the wording of each of the questions?
  45. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: Michael Manning, it really depends on what the questions were. If I were asked about evolution, I would agree that we come from protoplasmic creatures and that chances are we were related to the ape. Now, if someone asked if we evolved from them, I would probably take that onward-and-upward linear definition and question it.Evolving is different from adapting. By the evolving theory, the largest brained cat, the tiger, would be regarded as the smartest, while the cat with the smallest brain to body size, the domestic house cat, would be the dumbest. Not so. The cat that thinks fastest and reasons best is the house cat. More than evolving, it adapted to the world. (They were also ingenious enough to see a good thing with humans.)

    It is typical for pollsters to come up with key words in questions that skew the anticipated results. Now THEY have not evolved!
  46. Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: “Out of all of the sects in the world, we notice an uncanny coincidence: the overwhelming majority just happen to choose the one that their parents belong to. Not the sect that has the best evidence in its favour, the best miracles, the best moral code, the best cathedral, the best stained glass, the best music: when it comes to choosing from the smorgasbord of available religions, their potential virtues seem to count for nothing, compared to the matter of heredity. This is an unmistakable fact; nobody could seriously deny it. Yet people with full knowledge of the arbitrary nature of this heredity, somehow manage to go on believing in their religion, often with such fanaticism that they are prepared to murder people who follow a different one.&8221; Richard Dawkins
  47. Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: “If someone were to propose that the planets go around the sun because all planet matter has a kind of tendency for movement, a kind of motility, let us call it an &8216;oomph,&8217; this theory could explain a number of other phenomena as well. So this is a good theory, is it not? No. It is nowhere near as good as the proposition that the planets move around the sun under the influence of a central force, which varies exactly inversely as the square of the distance from the center. The second theory is better because it is so specific; it is so obviously unlikely to be the result of chance. It is so definite that the barest error in the movement can show that it is wrong; but the planets could wobble al over the place, and, according to the first theory, you could say, &8216;Well, that is the funny behaviour of the &8216;oomph.&8217;&8217;&8221; Richard Feynmann
  48. Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: “People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe.&8221; Hippocrates (c.460-c.377 B.C.E.)
  49. Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
    'The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts.'
  50. Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes:
    Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey
    'If a kid asks where rain comes from, I think a cute thing to tell him is 'God is crying.' And if he asks why God is crying, another cute thing to tell him is 'Probably because of something you did.' —SNL
  51. Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: Buddha ( Siddhartha Gautama, 563-483, B.C.E.)
    'Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.'
  52. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him. - Voltaire
    If there were a God, it would be man's duty to destroy him. - Bakunin
  53. Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: John Smith: Good one. Speaking of Voltaire...

    Voltaire ( François M. Arouet, On his deathbed, in response to a priest asking that he renounce Satan)

    'Now, now my good man. This is no time for making enemies!'
  54. Cymro yn byw yma Canada from Canada writes: According to the Angus Reid poll, Canadians who are younger than 34, have an income of more than $50,000 a year or are university-educated are significantly more likely to believe in evolution.

    Obviously creationism is for the elderly, the losers and the guys who empty the collection plate. As the younger than 34 get older and we all become beter educated, creationism becomes a ridiculous and losing proposition.

    Time heals all wounds and wounds all heels.
  55. D M from Toronto, Canada writes: Hey, it's important to realize that I'm the most objective person around - yes me. Wait a minute, you mean you are too? Well how can we disagree if we are both so objective? The truly objective person is the one who can admitt that s/he filters the information s/he receives based on biases that come from past experiences, beliefs, etc. I find that most people choose what they want to believe and then go looking for evidence to support it (or evidence that they can interpret in a supportive manner). Believers in creationism as a whole are looking for meaning, eternal security, etc. Believers in evolution are looking for humanistic growth and a lack of accountability to any higher authority. The evidence that surrounds us can often be interpreted in either way - based on biases. We also rely upon social proof - that is the psychological principle that causes people to tend to go along with the crowd. If you hang with athiests, you will tend to be swayed towards atheism. If you hang with creationists, you will tend to be swayed towards creationism. Yeah, but all my opinions are based on scientific evidence. Most of the responses I have read here haven't been. Most are groundless - it's easy to determine that they are because they rely no personal attacks. In the past, elements of various churchs felt threatened by scientific discussions - especially those that were contrary to what they felt their faith was based on. They were wrong about most of those theories, they were wrong that their faith was based upon them and they were wrong to feel threatened. After all, in the case of the Catholic church, the Bible does not indicate that humans were so important to God that he would make the entire universe rotate around them - yet because of a stupid assumption, they felt threated. I peronally don't mind such discussions. In contrast, how many here feel threatened when creationists discuss their interpretation of the evidence?
  56. Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: This is about a lot more than evolution. (And what does the fact that dinosaurs predated humans have to do with evolution anyway?). This is about whether you 'believe your lying eyes' as Groucho Marx put it, or you switch off your brain and merely accept what some authority figure tells you to accept.

    This is crucial, because people who are capable of thinking for themselves are not easily manipulated, whereas people who are capable of accepting some fairy story against all evidence to the contrary, are ripe for manipulating any way you want.

    If you believe that dinosaurs walked with people, I have this lovely bridge that may interest you. Or better still, there's this war I want you to go and fight in for me.
  57. Arec Bardwin from Canada writes: Even if creationism is pure bunk, the thought of God's son riding a Velociraptor through the streets of Israel is somehow pleasing to me.
    Moses was, for certain, able to tame a Tyranosaurus Rex. He named him Fido, instead of Rex though.
  58. Clark Kent from Canada writes: Wow. Is this due to Canada's aging population? An increasing number of people looking for easy thoughts before they die? Contrasting this with the increasing number of people in Canada who don't identify with an organised religion or are atheist/agnostic...

    It's quite sad that ideas like Natural Selection are disbelieved. I think it's a failing people to grasp science at the fundamental level. Failure to teach it. (I know evolution wasn't properly taught when I was in highschool.)
  59. Arec Bardwin from Canada writes: The creationist arguments implies that the fossil record is a somewhat haphazard jumble of odds and ends dumped by the flood and represents only a general sequence of complex life. They commonly argue that the geologic rock record and its fossil sequence is a vast conspiracy among academics who warp and misinterpret the evidence in an attempt to defend cherish beliefs about a science's particular version of the nature of the earth. To the point, unfortunately, where they see science and an enemy. Another group beside the scientific community has vested interests in the fossil record. Oil companies spend billions of dollars every year based on the belief that the earth contains a highly ordered and very predictable fossil record. Each year they test and refine the details of this fossil sequence to locate ancient reefs, trace the shorelines of long vanished oceans, unravel the complex time relationships of ancient mountain systems. Fossil data correlate across rivers, countries, continents and oceans. These fossil data control the drilling of thousands of multi-million dollar wells, guiding the drill bits to precise geologic targets at depths up to 7 km. One might expand the Creationist charges about academics to ask who is likely to be more reliable about hard facts concerning the nature of the earth: (1) a group of religious advocates most of whom have almost no direct knowledge of the earth but wish to push their particular theology about the Bible or (2) numerous hard-headed petroleum businessmen who have been drilling that earth on a day-to-day basis for over a century and every day pour millions more of their own dollars into ventures based on that experience with the fossils and the geologic record?
  60. Gordon Biddy from Vancouver, Canada writes: There should be no 'camps'. In the non-Christian world (thankfully a large part of it) there is no Creation vs Evolution debate. Science is generally accepted along with religious beliefs.

    My question to those who insist on legitimizing the Judeo-Christian creation myth as a theory by trying to have it compared to evolution, is why not compare creation to gravity? Gravity is also just a theory, one also not mentioned much in your bible.

    Is it a right, or a mental illness, to choose not to believe in gravity?

    This question of creation or evolution is a ruse, cleverly designed to distract those on either side of the debate and obfuscate the truth.

    The true question is not either or, because evolution exists everywhere in nature and ignoring it would be like ignoring the presence of matter on which to stand.

    The true question is why would your God create evolution but not tell you about it?

    If you believe in creationism, by default you believe in everything that is here in the known universe: gravity, evolution, the earth moving 'round the sun, dark matter, quasars. The whole sha-bang.

    Now there is no creation vs evolution argument, only creation vs reality.

  61. Barry Partington from Canada writes: What I find interesting is that religious fundamentalists always go for biology as their bone of contention. If one really wants to do a merger between belief and science, they should start looking more at physics. If the nuclear forces were off by a tiny tiny fraction of a percent, our universe would just be a big ole ball of plasma. This alone simply astonishes me! That's where a higher power, if any, shaped the world.

    The problem, however, is that everyone can relate to biology... it's on our level of everyday perception. Not many can wrap their heads around the math and conceptions presented in string theory, etc.
  62. Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: As a Cabbalistic Christian there's nothing I find more ridiculous or more misleading than taking Judaic texts which were written as metaphors and insisting on literal translations.

    The Jews have spent most of their existence living in the lands of other people. One method they found of fitting in but still maintaining their culture was to view local stories as metaphors. In this manner the spirit or essence of their beliefs were still maintained.

    Genesis is a metaphor. If one is in anyway interested in the truth then this must be acknowledged. If one wishes to be self deluded then by all means have at it, but don't pretend that this is supported by demonstrable fact, because it isn't.

    Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
    'I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.'
  63. Cymro yn byw yma Canada from Canada writes: If you accept Creationism you accept the bible. Therefore to be logical you should believe that Noah went to Ausatralia to get a couple of kangaroos and to Komodo for a couple of K dragons. You would have had to collect every one of the thousands of species of flies, birds etc etc. You should also accept that a woman taken in adultery should be stoned to death. And so on and on. Round things!
  64. Paul Kruger from Vernon, Canada writes: Oh please Gordon ... 'Now there is no creation vs evolution argument, only creation vs reality.' Give us a break! For a theory 170 years old, with most of Science and it's adherents backing it all those years, it still has yet to show a 'species leap' which is so key to it's central theme. Modest changes (adaptation) yes, a species leap/transition - still waiting! What a pitiful theory, and as Science goes, not really good science at all, as Cosmology shows the stage for Evolution not nearly old enough for random processes to result in humans and complex life forms. Let's not forget that the same crew (era of scientists) that thought up this rubbish, also thought up a static universe and a infinitely old universe (needed to allow for the possibility of evolution). Well Good Science has proved that basic flawed key assumption - just plain old DEAD WRONG! So, the only honest thing to do is to say that if the bedrock of the theory turned out to be quicksand, maybe it augth to be re-evaluated. Of course that would require a re-evaluation of the religious beliefs of evolutionists - and YES, it too is a religion, just read above how it's believers defend it ... by faith!
  65. Henry Allen from Toronto, Canada writes: I am grateful that the G&M periodically gives forums such as this for discussions about issues like Creationism vs Darwinism.

    I read each person's comment carefully, score each argument from 1 to 10 for logical construct, then multiply those points by a weighting for relative importance, and add each resultant value to a force-field anaylsis chart. Once comments are closed, I do a final calculation of all force values to determine which shows the greatest strength, Creationism or Darwinism.

    Then, maybe I don't.
  66. D M from Toronto, Canada writes: Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) 'The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts.' and Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes:This is crucial, because people who are capable of thinking for themselves are not easily manipulated, whereas people who are capable of accepting some fairy story against all evidence to the contrary, are ripe for manipulating any way you want. Both are excellent points - however the question still needs to be asked, are those who accept evolution (and attack all who have another opinion) examining it as carefully as they would have us believe? A reader from Toronto, Canada writes: What gets ME about the 'Bible crowd' is that MOST don't even read their Bible. Another good point - however how many of the evolutionist here have spent any time truly studying it as opposed to spouting off the same rhetoric that they read in the last forum? Your knowledge of the King James Bible is only half correct. King James did try to influence the translation - to the point of torturing the translators. However, he died before it was completed and the translation remained true to the early manuscripts. For those who hate me because I choose not to believe in evolution - I have studied the history of the church, and the Bible. I have studied the Bible itself - however my degree is in science. Many of the experiments that our society has used to prove evolution, such as the Miller Experiement (synthesis of amino acids), the fossil record and Haeckel's embryos have fallen apart - yet we continue to teach them as if they had not failed. For those of you who would yell at me to open my mind - I'm not sure that it is closed. Just because I choose to disagree does not make it closed. However, telling others to open their minds because of disagreement might be evidence of such.
  67. Paul Kruger from Vernon, Canada writes: Oh please Gordon ... 'Now there is no creation vs evolution argument, only creation vs reality.' Give us a break! For a theory 170 years old, with most of Science and it's adherents backing it all those years, it still has yet to show a 'species leap' which is so key to it's central theme. Modest changes (adaptation) yes, a species leap/transition - still waiting! What a pitiful theory, and as Science goes, not really good science at all, as Cosmology shows the stage for Evolution not nearly old enough for random processes to result in humans and complex life forms. Let's not forget that the same crew (era of scientists) that thought up this rubbish, also thought up a static universe and a infinitely old universe (needed to allow for the possibility of evolution). Well Good Science has proved that basic flawed key assumption - just plain old DEAD WRONG! So, the only honest thing to do is to say that if the bedrock of the theory turned out to be quicksand, maybe it augth to be re-evaluated. Of course that would require a re-evaluation of the religious beliefs of evolutionists - and YES, it too is a religion, just read above how it's believers defend it ... by faith!
  68. Henry Allen from Toronto, Canada writes: I am grateful that the G&M periodically gives forums such as this for discussions about issues like Creationism vs Darwinism.

    I read each person's comment carefully, score each argument from 1 to 10 for logical construct, then multiply those points by a weighting for relative importance, and add each resultant value to a force-field anaylsis chart. Once comments are closed, I do a final calculation of all force values to determine which shows the greatest strength, Creationism or Darwinism.

    Then, maybe I don't.
  69. Paul Kruger from Vernon, Canada writes: We can consider the theory of relativity proven, because good Science has shown it to be so, but we cannot declare a 170 year old theory which has still to produce any solid proof of any inter-species transitions, and can only roll out a whole bunch of discrete fossils - none of which demonstrate a Species leap - proven. Let's not forget many of you predicted the Coelacanth to be just such an 'interim step' - only to find it alive and living (unchanged) hundreds of millions of years later! Virtually unique in the animal kingdom, with a saga steeped in science and popular imagination, the fabulous Coelacanth - that 400 million year old 'living fossil' fish, swims on. Pre-dating the dinosaurs by millions of years and once thought to have gone extinct with them, 65 million years ago, the Coelacanth with its 'missing link' 'proto legs' was 'discovered' alive and well in 1938 – and unchanged! Well, the mud you all said it crawled around in it's attempts to crawl out of the sea and onto dry land, is on your faces, and you are all hoping we did not notice. It still lives in the sea, off of the SE coast of Africa - UNCHAGED for hundreds of millions of years, as your own “super-reliable proof” – the fossil record you tout so eloquently, clearly shows! It takes a particular kind of Religious zeal to decalre the 'Theory of evolution' proven!
  70. Dr. Gonzo from Canada writes: Well congratulations Paul Kruger, you've just proved you have little to zero understanding of evolution!

    Any other subjects you'd like to 'enlighten' us on??
  71. Ben Morris from Victoria, Canada writes: Paul Kruger, you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process. No scientist says 'evolution is proven'--they say 'evolution is the best theory we have to explain the development of life on earth'.

    Some parts of the theory have less supporting evidence than others, but that's not relevant--what is relevant is that none of the theory, in its modern form, has been disproven.

    As with any theory, as new evidence is uncovered, the affected parts will be discarded or revised--but never invented from thin air (or at least, not past the point of sustained inquiry).

    Can't say as much for creationism.
  72. Ray Farrell from Ottawa, Canada writes: When I laugh at Christians (or any other believers) I like to picture the Infinite God sitting all by Himself in infinity for Eternity and then one day getting bored and creating the universe and humankind. Of course, to Him, being Eternal, the entire length of time from creation to final destruction would appear infinitely short. A nanosecond in eternity! Why bother? What's next? Watch a few eons of Friends reruns?
  73. Just The Facts from Canada, Canada writes: And in other news, 100% of Pygmies recently polled believe that the earth & all living creatures were created by the Sun God Zoltan about 200 yrs ago.

    And just 300 yrs ago, most people believed that witches caused disease, crop failures & other calamities, & so they had to be burned at the stake.

    And just 400 yrs go, documents show that most people believed in fire-breathing dragons & other monsters that lurked in the forests.

    **Hopefully in 100 yrs the under-educated rubes who ascribe to bizarre fairy tales will be in the tiny minority. This is a very depressing poll, if accurate. Good 'Lord'.
  74. Paul Kruger from Vernon, Canada writes: Wow 'Dr. Gonzo' - is that the best you can come up with? Let's hear your rebutal, based on solid science - not just your sarcasm. Perhaps your lack of any acedemic counter-point is because you are only a Dr. and a legend in your own mind? The Scientific facts are: (1) Cosmology has disproven the flawed assumption by Darwin's era of Science, that the Universe is infinitely old and static, and (2) the FOSSIL RECORD shows us a fish that predates even dinos, and that this fish (once touted as a 'missing link' still lives today - unchanged! So, 2 rather remarkable Scientifically valid points for which you have only sarcasm to counter. Hmmmm .... perhaps it is you who has just proven how little you understand.
  75. Paul Kruger from Vernon, Canada writes: Ben Morris, glad to hear you are honest. Still, look at the vast majority of answers above and elsewhere, and you will find people stating that EVOLTION is not a theory, but PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT, which, as you have pointed out, it certainly is not! Thanks for your rational honesty.
  76. Stan Bladams from Bedford, Canada writes: So just what agenda would be fulfilled by claiming that 53% (of Americans) is greater than 51% (of Ontarians) given the margins of error that would surround polls for populations of that size? There's not a hope in heck that those are statistically different from each other. The Globe and Mail should be embarassed at publishing such dreck. At BEST the claim should be 'Equal proportions of Americans and Ontarians believe that evolution explains how we got here'. Sheesh G&M, you should be ashamed. Editors, writers and copyeditors should learn some basic statistics so that their 'proofreading' catches errors such as this.....communicating ineffectively about math/science is just as egregious as bad spelling and grammar you know.
  77. Paul Kruger from Vernon, Canada writes: You know, whenever I raise the obvious questions that cause 'evolutionists' to have some 'doubt' - they react not unlike people in a religious cult, and they generally do not try and counter any of my arguments with good science, just the opposite, they resort to name-calling and sarcasm. I do think we all need to keep open minds, else we would still believe in the so called 'sound Science' that the universe is infinitely old and static - which, by the way, was a firmly held belief in the scientific community of Darwin's era. Well, they were indeed dead wrong on that one ... As well, Evolution would have us believe that 400 million years is more than enough time for a fish to 'morph' (probably a lot, but at least a little). Well, the Coelacanth is just such a 'fossil fish' - and is UNCHANGED from the fossil record, not something that evolutionists would have had us believe. So, another major blunder by that era of scientists ... but we had better all park our own brains, shut up and believe them anyway and not ask difficult questions.
  78. Stan Bladams from Bedford, Canada writes: 'Theory' does not mean 'blind speculation'. A 'theory' which has been tested and refined against data and studies multiple times such that refutational evidence cannot be found is essentially a scientific 'fact'. This, for instance, is how the theory of gravity came to be accepted as 'fact'....and how the theory of evolution came to be accepted as 'fact' amongst biologists as well. That's the key part of a theory, that it is testable, and re-testable, and that the test(s) does not provide counter-evidence to the theory. So, in its broad strokes, given the lack of credible refutational evidence, as far as most biologists are concerned evolution is a 'fact' in the same manner as most physical scientists consider gravity, the kinetic molecular model, atoms, light, etc. to be 'facts'. But in science language it is the 'Theory of Evolution', the 'Theory of Gravity', 'Atomic Theory', 'Light Theory', etc etc. Pretending that calling it the 'Theory of Evolution' means that it isn't considered to be the central organizing feature of biology is semantic BS.
  79. GlynnMhor of Skywall, Azeroth from Canada writes: Paul Kruger from Vernon, Canada writes:'(1) Cosmology has disproven the flawed assumption by Darwin's era of Science, that the Universe is infinitely old and static'

    Which does not affect anything to do with either natural selection or eviolution.

    'and (2) the FOSSIL RECORD shows us a fish that predates even dinos, and that this fish (once touted as a 'missing link' still lives today - unchanged!'

    Why would you think that a species intermediate between teleost fishes and amphibians would necessarily disappear? Did your mother disappear just because you were born?

    In any case, there is no reason to think that some putative gods would bother creating such widespread evidence hiding their acts of creation. On the other hand, evolution provides for religion, in that an ancient (on the order of 100,000 years ago) tribe that had one would have a small advantage over tribes that did not. The leadership of the tribe without religion is the guy who's the biggest and meanest in the tirbe, whereas if there is a priesthood of some kind influencing power, it is a route for the smart people of the tribe to help lead.
  80. Eric of Windsor from Canada writes: ? Are babies created or do they evolve into existance. Does something have to happen first eg. outside influence in whatever form or does it just happen by itself. We know the answer, Creation proof not theory, happening tens of 1000's times daily........ end of story, end of debate.
  81. Robert Sohn from Toronto, Canada writes: For those who think they know Evolution theory so well, tell us one (just one) 'evidence' that supports the theory. Bonus point for those who can explain why they are 'sure' of it.
  82. Blank Look from Calgary, Canada writes: WAIT!! Who is the almighty Zargon that we are suppose to worship every Wednesday? Finally we can get back to a noble state of polytheism. On the right we have the mighty god of war, please gut a lamb once a day prior to your daily battle commuting to and from work (smear on face to intimidate your fellow motorist at the four-way stop.) On the left the full figured goddess of fertility... rawr, wait did I say fertility! Where is lust or beauty with out the lingering responsibility?

    Evolution, creation, intelligent design, unintelligent design, monotheism; come on everybody knows it was my uncle Jim who made the Earth last Thursday (he needed a place to store his ole Chevy), Aunt Rita gave ya'll memories so we didn’t stand around with blank looks on our faces.
  83. Dr. Gonzo from Canada writes: LOL Eric of Windsor!

    That is the stupidest thing I have ever read!!! LMAO!

    I'm sending this in to National Lampoon!
  84. Luke P from Vancouver, Canada writes: D M from Toronto, Canada writes: ...Many of the experiments that our society has used to prove evolution, such as the Miller Experiement (synthesis of amino acids), the fossil record and Haeckel's embryos have fallen apart...

    1) The Miller-Urey Experiment actually was and is considered a success. Their goal was not to create life, but to show that amino acids could be produced from early Earth atmospheric conditions. The main point of contention with the experiment was that when oxygen was added to the system, no organic molecules were created. However, the presence of oxygen in the early atmosphere is still being debated, and many think that its presence is more likely related to photosynthetic processes of already developed life. If nothing else, it showe