Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

50 greatest books

On the origin of species

MICHAEL RUSE

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 5:01 AM EDT 24/03/08

This epoch-defining work is the third in our series ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Kenneth Knutson from Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada writes: The complexity of the human eye argues for intelligent design and against evolution. I agree with other intelligent design advocates that so complex an organ must have been designed. Why don't we have one eye or three eyes instead of just two if we evolved? Even Darwin himself recognized that his theory of evolution was threatened by this complexity but he did not think this challenge was ïnsuperable". The fact that we are still having arguments about an unproven theory shows that the challenge has indeed remained insuperable.
    Some evolutionists say there is no need to explain organ complexity. That, in my opinion, is like the ostrich sticking his head in the sand.
    Evolution requires as much faith as does belief in an intelligent designer and the fact that I choose the latter theory is because it is to me the most reasonable and most explicable.
  2. Devil's Advocate from Canada writes: Hi Kenneth. I disagree that complexity requires a designer. Just because we can't understand something - like how something so complex can evolve naturally or why something evolved in one way and not another - doesn't mean that it was purposefully designed. Human knowledge is constantly growing and changing and maybe one day we will know precisely how and why some things evolved. Until then, the truth, whatever it may be, exists independent of the beliefs of mere mortals.
  3. A skeptical MD from Canada writes: Knutson, the eye arguement is considered by evolutionary theorists as a classic example of the fallacy "intelligent design". Proponents of "intelligent design" suggest that since the eye is such a complex organ and a "partially evolved" eye has no function the eye must have come into being through design or even arrived complete. (Note that the latter is actually a creationist arguement, but creationism and intelligent design really differ only by degree.) Nothing could be further from the truth. Nature is full of intermediate forms that chart the evolution of the eye from primitive photosensors to the sophisticated retina and visual cortex that modern vertebrates possess. Consider the scallop and the horseshoe crab as living examples. (By the way, horseshoe crabs have one eye and scallops many.) Do some objective reading on the subject and you will discover that the structure of the vertebrate eye is in fact a classic example of evolution, not proof of the half baked fallacy of intelligent design. Origin of Species would be a perfect place for you to start. By the way, evolution is not an "unproven theory". Evolution is an established fact, which has been directly observed countless times. Darwin's theory was Natural Selection, a proposed mechansim by which Darwin believed evolution operated. So Darwin's theory is Natural Selection, not evolution. There are other proposed mechanisms for evolution which do not exclude natural selection, as Darwin's theory is now almost universally accepted by anyone with a scientific background.
  4. Al B from Toronto, Canada writes: Thousands of years ago people did not understand the causes of thunder, so they imagined a thunder throwing Zeus. What we do not know now, we will know in the future. Darwin recognized the bounds of knowledge at his time. He explained what he knew he could explain, while realizing that he could not explain everything that he would have liked to explain. Science is a cumulative process, it does not spring out fully formed with all answers. It may well be that evolution requires 'as much faith' as intelligent design; but it is a different kind of faith, a human centric faith instead of a God centric faith.
  5. Kenneth Knutson from Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada writes: Skeptical MD: A statement that evolution is an established fact and that it has been "Observed" is not a valid argument and does not merit an objection from me. I believe that we were created by an intelligent designer. If you want to believe that natural selection is an unproven theory that is fine but I do see a link between evolution and natural selection. According to your comment everyone who uses the term " theory of evolution" is using the wrong terminology. It is a pretty common usage so must be accepted as valid by many.
    Devil's Advocate: I agree that the truth lies in the eye of the beholder. I am not sure what you mean by the statement that " the truth exists independent of the beliefs of mere mortals" or how this is pertinent to a discussion of evolution.
    Al B: Why should I be expected to choose between a human centric faith and a God centric faith. My faith in humans is pretty fragile especially when I see them scurrying around trying to convince me with weak theories that I should believe in Anyone But God.
  6. Enlightened Ape from Canada writes:
    Kenneth, do you believe in the theory of Zeus or Thor?
  7. A skeptical MD from Canada writes: Mr. Knutson, you clearly are not educated in the field of biology; probably not even basic science. The term "theory of evolution", when applied to Darwinism, correctly means natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. The title of Darwin's book is, in fact, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection". I have a copy on my bookshelf and have read it. I seriously doubt you have. The fact that many people use the term "theory of evolution" incorrectly does not make it otherwise, many people use many terms incorrectly. I personally observe evolution by means of natural selection in my work quite regularly. Bacterial populations evolve antibiotic resistance as a consequence of antimicrobial therapies, for example. The scientific literature is filled with well documented examples of natural selection, you have only to look. Recently it was reported on this very website that African elephants have evolved smaller tusks as a result of males bearing large prominent tusks being killed off by ivory hunters. You seem to have also made the common error of assuming that accepting Darwin's theory as correct somehow precludes the existence of or belief in God. This is untrue. Darwin himself believed that God created life. It is true that Darwinism precludes the notion that God created man de novo a few thousand years ago, but rational discussion on this topic with anyone who supports this belief is impossible. By all means, believe in intelligent design if it pleases you. Believe in the tooth fairy for all I care. But don't mistake that faith based set of beliefs for rational thought or scientific arguement; it is not.
  8. neil m from niagara falls, Canada writes: Oh boy! Well here are some thoughts that might help clear up Kenneth Knutson's confusion. First, intelligent design is not a theory, at best it is an hypothesis. Many people, including K.K. confuse these two terms. An hypothesis is your best guess. You start out by saying that you believe X (your hypothesis) and then you try to prove or rather disprove X. If your hypothesis stands up to scrutiny and is in accordance with reality then it becomes a theory, meaning that it is accepted as fact. You wouldn't say that gravity is just someone's fancy -- gravity is a fact just like evolution. Secondly, I think what Devil's Advocate is trying to say is that there is a material universe that exists independantly of our observation. An example: gravity still exists and acts upon you regardless of whether or not you believe in it. If you doubt this, try jumping off your roof. If a superman cape didn't work when you were 5 it won't work now. Thirdly, I'm guessing that you (K.K.) aren't a photographer. Eyes are wonderful things, but if they were designed it was by someone who doesn't know much about optics. Our eyes can only see a fraction of the light spectrum and have no zoom features to list a couple of their deficiencies. Lastly, K.K., you're creating a false choice when you say that you must decide between a theocentric faith vs an anthropocentric faith. The choice between a belief in god and rational science is a choice between an unconfirmed and unprovable belief in the supernatural and incomplete yet observable, reproducable and logically consistent knowledge. Scientific thought doesn't preculde the possibility of a god or gods, but it makes any conception of creator god that people have seem very unlikely.
  9. David K from Guelph, Canada writes: If one supports the theory of intelligent design then what about the tendency of certain races to be more prone to different diseases like say, sickle cell anemia? Does that mean that the alleged creator has built in defects to test our faith?
  10. Kenneth Knutson from Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada writes: Skeptical MD: OK so elephants have "ëvolved" smaller tusks...that is change within species...no one is arguing that that does not happen. But does it prove anything about the evolution of one species to another? Some "savant" the other day said that through the process of evolution humans have gained a conscience. It seems to me that a conscience would be the great enemy of the theory of survival of the fittest. Adolf Hitler (and I think you will agree that his conscience was somewhat twisted) was actually following evolutionary theory when he advocated the destruction of "inferior" humans but I seem to recall that Nazi ideas were the cause of the Second World War. Telling me that scientists pronounce truth and demeaning the scientific knowledge that a non-evolutionist may or may not have has no effect on my strong belief in intelligent design....Science is not my God as it seems to be for so many.
    I concede that Science, when it works with provable theories has accomplished much but scientists have also made many errors which they have later had to correct. Science, my learned friends, does not have all the answers. If you believe otherwise then you are relying on a false God.
  11. Enlightened Ape from Canada writes: Who let Kenneth out of the insane asylum? Cuckoo, cuckoo.
  12. Jim Cohoon from Chilliwack, Canada writes: Whatever his putative religion (Unitarian?), Darwin apparently was essentially an Enlightenment 'deist'. He wrote in 'The Origin of Species': "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one ..." It resonates with the writings of another deist, Thomas Paine, who wrote (in 'The Age of Reason'): "Instead then, of studying theology ... out of the Bible ... the authenticity of which is disproved, it is necessary that we refer to the 'bible of the creation'. The principles we discover there are eternal and of divine origin; they are the foundation of all the science that exists in the world.... We can know God only through his works." Like Darwin, Paine has refused to accept man-made religion as the source of ultimate truth; but they both seem to also implicitly refuse to make man-made science a virtual religion unto itself by transcending science into a realm of eternal principles or metaphysics where 'God' or 'Creator' become terms for 'ultimate truth'. To use a Darwinian analogy, like some 'advanced' chimps using twigs as tools to extract ants, some humans have discovered science as a tool to find 'god' (by whatever name). Whether, in the final analysis, human science provides more nourishment for the human soul is a question science itself can't answer.
  13. g h from Canada writes: Enlightened Ape: I don't know if I agree with everything Kenneth Knutson is saying either, but I respect his ability to put forward, and defend, a reasoned position in a manner which is respectful of contrary opinions, without compromising his own. What about you? Are you going to put forward anything beyond churlish insults? Clearly the bar has been set too high for you on the comments board this evening. Why don't you scoot over to the sports or entertainment sections... and drop "Enlightened" from your moniker while you're at it.
  14. Brian Havelock from Winnipeg, Canada writes: "I concede that Science, when it works with provable theories has accomplished much but scientists have also made many errors which they have later had to correct. Science, my learned friends, does not have all the answers. If you believe otherwise then you are relying on a false God."

    What, if any, scientific basis is there for intelligent design sir?

    I personally don't have any objection to an individual's belief in a god or god's as the case may be. What I do take issue with is the suggestion that one is obliged to believe in a god when there is actually no tangible proof that one ever existed in the first place.
  15. Andrew Slater from Canada writes: The essence of the debate that will ensue in this thread is one of symantics. The believers in evolution will point to numerous cases of "speciation" as "proof" of evolution. The difficulty is that speciation is NOT evolution at all as the species all remain the same species, whereas true evolution would require that a species would completely change on numerous occasions over time, which is something that there is absolutely no proof of, unless you count the many times that advocates of evolution have found "proof" in fraudulent hoaxes. Evolution requires that all species evolved from some primordial ooze. I would ask why, if the human species has desired to fly in the air for millenia, some of us have not sprouted wings. The simple reason is that we are unable to so transform ourselves.
  16. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: The most cogent discussion on the importance of Darwin and the Origin of the Species by Natural Selection that I have read is Jacques Barzun's book Darwin, Marx and Wagner. Barzun 's discusses Darwin's book within ithe ntellectual milieu of the book's publication, discusses its scientific and philosophic antecedents, and its elevation to paradigm. It is well worth reading; as most of you know, Barzun was likely the most prestigious and respected intellectual historian of the twentieth century, and still alive, I believe, at age 100.
    Also, you can read the book online.
  17. Kenneth Knutson from Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada writes: Brian Havelock: No one is "obliging" you to believe in a Supreme Being. You were born with a free will and can come to your own decisions about important matters.
    If there is any coercion in this issue, it is in the matter of evolutionary scientists insisting that only one theory of man's existence be taught to our children. Why are they afraid to have alternative ideas taught so that we can use our free will to decide what to believe? I have not been afraid to make my children and grandchildren aware of the existence of beliefs contrary to my own probably because I see the speciousness of evolutionary doctrines and I hope they too will make their own choices based on the information made available to them.
    What the evolutionists are doing in this matter is the same as what the Catholic church has tried to do down through the centuries...eliminate any tendency for people to think for themselves.
    This by the way is also true of their Protestant counterparts. Such coercion is not the message I get from the Bible.
    Most evolutionists have rejected the Bible but they have replaced it with their own Bible...the very book which sparked this exchange of ideas. And they defend the theories in that book with all the enthusiasm of the early "Christian" explorers to North America who tried to force their beliefs on the natives and like those misguided individuals will brook no opposition.
    Yes, evolutionary philosophy is a religion, like it or not.
  18. Fred Bilton from Canada writes: Personally, I've never had any difficulty seeing evolution as God's creative mechanism. Every creative effort I've been able to observe has been either reductive (carving, for example) or additive (painting or writing), often with false starts, revisions and dead ends.

    We just haven't been able to see God's hand and mind in action over a long enough time frame yet. It's clear enough that we're still a work in progress.

    Mark Twain's comment that "God created Man because he was dissatisfied with the monkey" may sum it up better than we know.
  19. Brian Havelock from Winnipeg, Canada writes: "No one is "obliging" you to believe in a Supreme Being. You were born with a free will and can come to your own decisions about important matters."

    I noticed you ducked my question. Now we've moved onto the free will fantasy. I was born as a result of the joining of an egg and sperm(as were you)....a random event. God is a creation of the human imagination to give some meaning to life and to rationalize death. There is no place in our public education system (especially under the guise of science) for intelligent design.

  20. Kenneth Knutson from Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada writes: Havelock: I am sorry if I seemed to duck your question. I thought the answer was obvious: I cannot prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer any more than you can prove his non existence. Just saying that that is a figment of human imagination does not make it so.
    Your further comments just prove me right in saying that those who believe in evolution make dogmatic statements that is they state with authority that which they cannot prove.
  21. neil m from niagara falls, Canada writes: Kenneth Knutson: No one is saying that you can't teach your children or grandchildren about religion and god. There are places for this sort of learning: religion classes, church and Sunday school and the home. What people are saying is that when it comes to teaching the origin of humankind in science class, evolution is the only scientific explanation/theory. Intelligent design is neither a theory nor science (see my earlier post for more on this), it is theology dressed up as science and does not belong in science education.
    As for your comparing proponents of evolution with early Christian missionaries in the Americas: yes, some proponents of evolutionary theory are becoming very outspoken largely because many evangelical Christians are trying to either ban the teaching of evolution from schools or sneak theology into science classes under the guise of intelligent design. Secondly, proponents of evolution are a long way from burning people at the stake for heresy, so please don't compare us with murderous enthusiasts.
  22. Brian Havelock from Winnipeg, Canada writes: "I cannot prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer any more than you can prove his non existence. Just saying that that is a figment of human imagination does not make it so."

    As you must know a person can't prove a negative(non existence). The onus is on you to provide the proof for your assertions. At least you have acknowledged you have no proof for your belief.
  23. Kenneth Knutson from Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada writes: Come on Havelock, pay attention. I did not say I have no proof for my beliefs. I have the whole universe, the wonderful human body, scientifically proven laws such as gravity. (which incidentally humans did not invent or install) and the miracle of life itself. I said that I cannot prove to YOU what you want me to prove. Why is the onus on me to prove my beliefs and the onus is not on you to prove what you regard as a positive...that evolution is an established scientific fact? Apply the scientific method to evolution and see what you come up with...let me know.
  24. My Moniker is Better than Yours from Canada writes: Hello Kenneth Knutson from Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada. You seem to mistaking creationism as a science.

    Evolution is science, which involves the observation of events, the formulation of hypotheses as possible explanations for the mechanisms. These hypotheses are then tested to prove or disprove them. If many such experiments show a consistent pattern over many circumstances, and have the ability to predict other related events, it is accepted as fact until proven wrong.

    In terms of evolution, natural selection is a mechanism and through the processes I have outlined above, has been consistent in explanation and has been able to predict such patterns in every application possible. Creationism on the other hand, while does qualify to be a hypothesis, fails in every other way. It cannot therefore be placed in the category of science, and it's belief can go no further than theology.
  25. My Moniker is Better than Yours from Canada writes: Your argument regarding the complexity of the eye as being proof of intelligent design by a creator is faulty because of causality. From your posts, your argument seems to follow the logic of: the eye is complex, therefore a creator designed it. This really doesn't work because there is no proof of a creator as the mechanism; it is merely a hypothesis. Evolution in contrast, has the process of natural selection as the mechanism, and as I stated before, there IS proof and it explains the complexity of the eye.

    Also, the existence of "the whole universe, the wonderful human body, scientifically proven laws such as gravity" as proof falls under the same flawed argument as the eye. Aside from the fact that the existence of the universe and gravity do not fall under the same brand of science, biology, and is unrelated to evolution, this argument again seems to follow the line of thought: these things are complex, therefore a creator made them. Again, a hypothesis, but even so, not a good one because it cannot be tested. To believe it is true regardless of this flaw, is what theology is about.

    Because of this, creationism should not be taught in science class along with evolution. It does fit in perfectly in theology class.
  26. My Moniker is Better than Yours from Canada writes: One last point, speciation can occur in to ways. In one, a species can change over a long time in to another species. In the other, one species can become two or more species when a species is divided into separate populations under different environmental stresses. As an example, the finches that Darwin himself observed.

    Speciation is definitely a difficult concept to observe. Speciation is a difficult phenomenon to observe because the main definition is that a species has become an entirely different one when it can no longer interbreed and produce viable offspring. Things like mules cannot therefore be considered speciation because the mule itself is sterile, and it can neither mate with the horse, nor the donkey, nor other mules, and thus cannot produce offspring of its own.
  27. Brian Havelock from Winnipeg, Canada writes: "I did not say I have no proof for my beliefs."

    You've certainly left me with that impression Mr. Knutson. Each to his own I guess.

    "Because of this, creationism should not be taught in science class along with evolution. It does fit in perfectly in theology class."

    I agree.
  28. Kenneth Knutson from Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada writes: Moniker: I am not a creationist in the strict scientific sense of that term. For one thing, a creationist interprets the use of day in Genesis to be a 24 hour day, therefore he thinks that God created the earth in 7 days. In the language in which Genesis was written, day can mean more than a 24 hour period. It can even mean a 7,000 year period. I do not believe the world was created in 7 24 hour days....scientific investigation rules that out. But I do believe that it is scientifically possible that the earth was created in 7-7,000 year periods 49,000 years or even a longer time. If this is the case then evolution is not required and, I believe, never did happen.
    (Even in English when I say, talking about the future, such and such may happen "in that day" I don't mean next Tuesday).
    You say speciation is difficult to observe...that is correct. I do think though that if speciation was happening today it would be observable. Of course your come back will be, as you have already said, speciation takes a long time and that according to you it may very well be occurring right now, but slowly so it is not observable. Sorry, you can't prove that so until someone can I will withhold my faith in speciation.
    Bring me up to date on Darwin's finches please...if I interpret what you are saying here correctly what happened was not speciation but changes within species.
  29. My Moniker is Better than Yours from Canada writes: Hi Kenneth Knutson from Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada. I apologize if my categorizing you along with creationism offends you, but in terms of discussion between science and theology, intelligent design is simply just a reworked version of creationism intended to blend in as a science. However, like its predecessor, it fails as a scientific concept and similarly is limited to a poor hypothesis.

    Your personal belief of the 7-7000 year periods is also not a new concept, but as with creationism and intelligent, is merely a poor hypothesis and nothing but a theological belief.
  30. My Moniker is Better than Yours from Canada writes: Regarding your request to explain the finches, I'll try and outline the concept.

    Basically, the theory is that at one time the birds were once one species that dispersed among the many islands of the galapagos. Over time, as the birds settled in their individual environments, factors unique to each population of the birds began put selection pressures. For example, one island with extended periods of drought would kill off the plants that contained small seeds, leaving only large seeds for the birds to feed on. As with humans, birds vary in characteristics. Humans for example have different heights, birds can have different shaped beaks.

    In this example, birds with beaks larger than average would be able to crack the large seed coats, and thus would be able to feed. Those with smaller beaks would not, and would starve. As you can see in this situation, the selection pressure of large seeds put a pressure selecting against small beaks, and for larger beaks. Over time, birds with larger beaks would be at a greater advantage, and would pass their genes on to the next generation. Similar situations occurred in each of the islands, with different selection pressures on each population in question.

    Eventually, these individual populations grew so distinct that they could no longer interbreed, thus they became separate species. Their ability to breed and produce viable offspring is the crucial point to discussing whether the birds are different species no, or simply variations on the same bird.

    Arguments suggesting that the birds came from a common origin include the many similarities in morphological, behavioral, etc features.

    Of course what I am outlining here is a limited outline from personal memory, so if you want a more complete and accurate explanation, do some research in scientific articles, etc.
  31. Kenneth Knutson from Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada writes: Moniker: first of all you admit that you are describing a theory. What you have told me about the finches of the Galapagos adds nothing to my knowledge...this theory is about changes within a species and I know this happens...no argument there but it in no way proves speciation and that is the stumbling block I have about the evolution theory.
    I also cannot understand this emphasis on scientific theory as being superior to theological theory...it might be so in your mind but I thought scientists were to be open minded. I guess that applies to scientists who are not fanatical evolutionists and closed minded at that. Sorry but that is the way I feel.
    As to the day in Genesis being perhaps 7,000 years long I think it is rather significant that the process of carbon dating used by scientists to date various eras of earth's existence is accurate, according to those same scientists, only back 50,000 years and beyond that establishing the age of objects is unscientific and a matter of imagination. Now think, a creative "week" of 49,000 years....ummm interesting.
    Evolutionists ignore the Bible but in my study of the Bible I find that there is no division between TRUE science (i.e. provable science) and the Bible. However, that is something you will have to determine yourself...it's an interesting investigation and who knows to what new planes of thinking it might lead you?
    I think we have exhausted this subject...it has been no different than hundreds of other discussions I have had with evolutionists...amazing that the arguments presented against the Bible by evolutionists in these discussions always take the same tiresome course, always ending up in contempt and insults to the one who holds a different view but never offering any proof of speciation. Evolutionists, as I have said before, are just as closed minded as the religionists who believe that the earth was created in 7 24 hour days.
  32. Brian Havelock from Winnipeg, Canada writes: "Evolutionists, as I have said before, are just as closed minded as the religionists who believe that the earth was created in 7 24 hour days."

    I notice you've conveniently excluded your closed mind from the equation Mr. Knutson. If you want to accept the fiction represented by the bible and believe, without any tangible proof, in a superior being so be it.

    As long as your belief system is confined to it's proper place and not confused with science in the school curriculum then I think we are on the right track.
  33. Geriatric Personage from St. Stephen, Canada writes: IF there were a God and IF he gave us the benefit of free will and original thought, as he has, don't you think he would be terribly disappointed with his creation if the best they could do was say; "I don't really understand and can't be bothered to investigate further so there must be a supreme being"?
  34. My Moniker is Better than Yours from Canada writes: Morning Kenneth Knutson.

    First, "amazing that the arguments presented against the Bible by evolutionists in these discussions always take the same tiresome course, always ending up in contempt and insults to the one who holds a different view"

    - Well, I'll give you a chance to step back and read our string of posts, and determine for yourself whether either of us have posted "contempt and insults" to each other.

    Second, "but never offering any proof of speciation"

    - Well, you DID ask about the birds. If you want real speciation, you must look to organisms with short generation periods, etc. Try looking it up in microbes.

    Third, "I also cannot understand this emphasis on scientific theory as being superior to theological theory"

    - Never did I say one was superior to the other. I DID however present the arguments for why ID cannot be considered a science, as per my post at 27/01/08 at 7:36 PM EST.

    Fourth, "Evolutionists ignore the Bible but in my study of the Bible I find that there is no division between TRUE science (i.e. provable science) and the Bible"

    - Evolutionists have not ignored the Bible at all. I fact, it has been considered, but as with all the arguments you have presented, it also fails in having evidence.

    Fifth, "Evolutionists, as I have said before, are just as closed minded as the religionists who believe that the earth was created in 7 24 hour days."

    - Just as before, creation theory has not been ignored. There i simply no evidence for it being a viable explanation.
  35. Andrew Slater from Canada writes: The problem with the finches mentioned above is that it is not even proof of speciation when the truth is known fully. The change in beak length was only a temporary adaptation to a short term change in climate conditions following which the beak lengths returned to their former size. This is never mentioned by the proponents of evolution because they don't want you to know it since it actually disproves the theory.
  36. My Moniker is Better than Yours from Canada writes: Kenneth Knutson, let's try an analogy.

    For example, let us say that for the sake of argument, that the Bible has been taken as scientific fact. What if I come to you and make the claim that I created Mt. Everest.

    Can you prove that I am wrong? Problem is that the Bible is scientific fact now, and nothing in it directly says that God created Mt. Everest, but neither does it say that I did as well.

    Can I prove I am right? Well, actually, upon searching my room, my journal has a note scribbled in saying, "I created Mt. Everest".

    I then demand that the Bible be edited, and a chapter added at the end that proclaims the many accomplishments I have contributed to existence. I further demand that it be taught to our children, and that the last 5 minutes of every sermon be dedicated to acknowledging my work.

    Do you see where I am getting at?
  37. My Moniker is Better than Yours from Canada writes: Andrew Slater from Canada writes: The problem with the finches mentioned above is that it is not even proof of speciation when the truth is known fully. The change in beak length was only a temporary adaptation to a short term change in climate conditions following which the beak lengths returned to their former size. This is never mentioned by the proponents of evolution because they don't want you to know it since it actually disproves the theory.

    - What are you basing this claim on?
  38. Andrew Slater from Canada writes: There was a study of the very same Galapagos Islands finches done in 1977. There was that year a very severe drought which caused fewer seeds that were larger and harder than normal. What was observed was that the smaller-beaked finches were less likely to survive because they could not eat the larger seeds. However, following a period of intense rain, the average finch-beak size retruned to its pre-drought size and any changes observed were reversed.
  39. d w from Canada writes: Lets not forget that evolutionists think that they evolved from the primordial soup. That life sprang from the chemical soup. Totally preposterous. Organic matter breaks down as soon as the life force in it is gone.
  40. Kenneth Knutson from Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada writes: Geriatric personage: I think our Creator is probably also disappointed that Humans would seek to find any other theory of our existence as long as it did not involve a Creator. Such ones do not want to be beholden to anyone for their lives not even a Supreme Being. The do not want to be a little lower than the angels.
    You imply that I, for one, have not made any investigation into this matter: have you read my contributions? This is what I meant by the attitude of evolutionists toward those who have contrary opinions...make them feel lazy and stupid. Actually I am sorry I have to write this because your comment is really unworthy of reply.
    Thank you Andrew Slater and d w for your support. As I said before evolutionists demand of us proof but are unable to supply proof to support their theories...and that's what this is all about...the theories presented to explain human existence.
  41. Adam Courtney from Canada writes: To anyone who isn't close-minded, but wishes to be informed, I recommend reading: "Science, Evolution and Creationism" by the National Academy of Sciences:
    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876
    it is free to download and should clear up a lot of the confusion regarding the meaning of the word "theory" and outlines how research from many fields of science support the theory of evolution. It also outlines it's scope and relationship with religion.
  42. Simon Pieman from Canada writes: Kenneth Knudson says evolutionists "are unable to supply proof to support their theories".
    On the contrary, they supply proof every day in laboratories, where the workings of DNA are as clear as daylight. Life is chemical in nature, and that is it. End of story.
    Believers in God supply not a single proof apart from "faith" - i.e. they "feel it" to be true. If Jesus Christ were alive today, he'd be written off as a deluded sect leader with little more credibility than a professional cultist like L Ron Hubbard - or even more likely, as a schizophrenic who hallucinates that God is talking to him. Why rational human beings would rather lead their life according to fairy tales and superstiition rather than the physical evidence that is all around them is astonishing to me. What's wrong, KK, scared by the thought that nothing happens after you die?
  43. Kenneth Knutson from Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada writes: My dictionary defines theory as: a proposed explanation or hypothesis designed to account for any phenomenon.
    I suppose if I download as Adam Courtney recommends I will find a different definition of the word or possibly I will be told that evolution is not a theory but a fact.
  44. Adam Courtney from Canada writes: Actually, your dictionary is of limited scope. I'd recommend reading the article or the wikipedia article on the definition of "theory".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

    "The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion."

    ie. Newton's theory of universal gravitation (you do 'believe' in gravity don't you?)
  45. Geriatric Personage from St. Stephen, Canada writes: Kenneth Knutson from Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada writes: "My dictionary defines theory as: a proposed explanation or hypothesis designed to account for any phenomenon. " Correct! The idea is to offer explanations or arguments as to why the theory is not correct. So far NO logical argument has been made to (scientifically) counter the theory of evolution. The only counter has been ... "I don't believe it (evolution) so there must be a God, or there is a God so evolution cannot be true." Simon Pieman says "If Jesus Christ were alive today, he'd be written off as a deluded sect leader with little more credibility than a professional cultist like L Ron Hubbard - or even more likely, as a schizophrenic who hallucinates that God is talking to him" He would, quite rightly, be in a mental institute. Thank you for some sanity. Unfortunately the old adage rings true, you cannot argue with a fool or maybe there are none so blind as those that will not see. To all religionists I can only implore you to open your eyes and think.
  46. Kenneth Knutson from Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada writes: Simon Pieman: Not frightened at all. I know, that as the Bible says, when I am dead I am dead. This is not the forum I think for a theological discussion but I have to refer you in this instance to what the Bible says in Ecclesiastes 9:5..."The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all".
    The Bible does not teach that we have an immortal soul...that is an idea that was formulated by the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century to keep their members in line by instilling in them the fear that a loving Creator could and would punish wrong doers eternally in fire...another idea not supported by the Bible.
    Of course, the Bible also presents other prospects for the dead but I fear that would be of no interest to someone who thinks that Jesus Christ was a deluded sect leader.
  47. dave leblanc from Kamloops, Canada writes: So after all this....has anyone changed thier intractable stance.........evolution.....God. The really neat thing about God is you get to put the words in his mouth.
  48. Simon Pieman from Canada writes: Oh my, KK, have you read the Bible? It teaches on virtually every page that there is a kingdom of Heaven that only God-fearing folk like yourself can enter. Non-believers like myself will burn in hell, or at least be made to wait in line for a few millennia outside the velvet rope at the pearly gates. Your mate Jesus Christ himself repeated this very insanity to every passing person or donkey that would listen.
  49. Kenneth Knutson from Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada writes: What Bible are you reading Pieman and have YOU read it? If this was a theological discussion I would ask you to give me evidence that the Bible teaches hellfire, for example. You won't find it there. Don't confuse what religionists in the Catholic and Protestant churches tell you...they don't teach what is in the Bible. Some of them also believe that the Bible teaches that the earth was created in 7-24 hour days.
    I really believe that all this Bible bashing comes about as a result of confusion caused by religionists...they are the ones you should be criticizing.
    My religion is based solely on the Bible...I have spent many years studying it and though I am aware of what the churches teach I recognize that they are false teachers. How else can you account for the fact that even so called Christian churches are divided by theological differences, the sexual abuse of children and others by the clergy, the support of the churches of forms of government that are only meant to hold mankind in thrall (for example Nazi and Fascist?).
    Please don't hold me responsible for the errors of the churches just because I believe in a Creator, an Intelligent Designer.
  50. Mike G from Canada writes: Kenneth Knudson writes: "If there is any coercion in this issue, it is in the matter of evolutionary scientists insisting that only one theory of man's existence be taught to our children."

    No, people are insisting that science be taught in a science class. Teaching intelligent design as science would require some -- any -- scientific basis for ID. And there is none.

    "Why are they afraid to have alternative ideas taught so that we can use our free will to decide what to believe?"

    Well then, I want my Giant Sneeze Theory taught in class. The one that says we were the result of an alien's allergies to ragweed.

    No? Why are you afraid to have alternative ideas taught so that we can use our free will to decide what to believe?
  51. Andrew Slater from Canada writes: You might want to actually read Isaiah 66:23b-24.

    "All mankind will come to bow down before Me," says the LORD.
    "Then they shall go forth and look
    On the corpses of the men
    Who have transgressed against Me.
    For their worm shall not die,
    And their fire shall not be quenched;
    And they shall be an abhorrence to all mankind."

    There are many others, but I submitted this one from the Old Testament to allay the suggestion that it was only J e s u s who wrned about it.
  52. John Underhay from Canada writes: Anyone interested in modern example of speciation might want to check out this link:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
  53. tom h from Canada writes: Kenneth:

    Science does not have all the answers, and, as a biologist, I understand that many of my fellow scientists are primarily responsible for cultivating this incorrect notion. The role of science is to be skeptical, always questioning the conventional wisdom, and continually testing and re-testing hypotheses. Evolution by natural selection was introduced 150 years ago, and has been supported by countless scientific studies during that period, which is why it is so universally accepted today.

    You accept that species can evolve by this process, but not that they can diverge; however, there are numerous scientific studies that show just this. To start, I suggest you look at the work of Dolph Schluter, a biologist at the University of British Columbia. His work has documented the divergence of new species of sticklebacks (a type of fish).

    http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~schluter/
  54. Jeff Pritchard from Canada writes: Kenneth: Your understanding of evolution and science in general is deeply flawed. Wouldn't your time be better spent learning more about the theory you seek to disprove, rather than reiterating well-abused misunderstandings in an online forum - to dubious purpose?

    The complexity of the eye doesn't argue for anything. It just sits there, and we interpret it. The fact that you are unable to reconcile this complexity with evolution does not speak to a flaw in evolutionary theory - it speaks to a failure of your imagination.

    With regard to the article, Origin of Species certainly qualifies as one of the most influential books of all time. Would that more people had actually read and understood it before seeing fit to comment on it.
  55. Brian Havelock from Winnipeg, Canada writes: "My religion is based solely on the Bible...I have spent many years studying it and though I am aware of what the churches teach I recognize that they are false teachers. How else can you account for the fact that even so called Christian churches are divided by theological differences, the sexual abuse of children and others by the clergy, the support of the churches of forms of government that are only meant to hold mankind in thrall (for example Nazi and Fascist?).
    Please don't hold me responsible for the errors of the churches just because I believe in a Creator, an Intelligent Designer."

    Mr. Knutson you seem to have veered a bit off topic. In your zeal to confirm you belief system you have attacked a variety of Christian entities including Catholics and Protestants. I don't recall you mentioning your religon although if it is based upon your reading of the bible it would appear to be one of a Christian nature.

    I don't think anyone is holding you responsible for the errors of the Churches but rather that you seem unable to open your mind to the prospect of evolution.
  56. A skeptical MD from Canada writes: So... let's take a poll here. How many of you creation/intelligent design supporters have actually read On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin? Mr. Kuntson, you clearly haven't, since you were obviously unaware of its correct title. Your recent comments also suggest you either didn't read or failed to understand my post above clarifying the difference between the "theory of evolution" and the theory of netural selecton as proposed by Darwin. Let's also clarify some basic facts. 1. Intelligent design is not a theory, or even an hypothesis, since it cannot be disproven. It is a faith based belief system predicated on the existence of a supreme being or God. It is religon. 2. Evolution and natural selection are not religon. (a common objection of creationists, predictably posted here more than once) Nobody worships Darwin or his theories, there are no clergy, no churches, etc. Whether you believe in it or not, claiming evolution is a religon is stupid, period. 3.Natural selection and evolution do not claim to explain the origin of life. They describe how life changes over time, and propose a plausible mechanism for this change. Evolution is not incompatible with the existence of God. Intelligent design proposes that God drives the process of evolution in a purposeful manner, which is a religous notion, not a scientific one. It has no place in a secular education. 4. Darwin's theory of natural selection in now so widely accepted among scientists that is no longer considered a "theory". Just as Einstein's theory of relativity is no longer a theory. Creationists who deride evolution as "just a theory" are purposefully deluding themselves simply because evolution doesn't sit well with their preconceived ideals or religous beliefs. Natural Selection could conceivably be disproven (though this seems unlikely) or supplanted by a superior theory, just as Einstein's model superseded Newtons. So far none has been proposed.
  57. The Wight from Canada writes: "I really believe that all this Bible bashing comes about as a result of confusion caused by religionists...they are the ones you should be criticizing." And there lies the rub ... everyone's got their own interpretation of the Bible, you included. Everyone says their interpretation is the true one, all others are false and this charade has been going on since religion was concocted in the terrified minds of uneducated tribesmen. What separates this statement you've made in 2008 from all the other similar statements made in past centuries? How are you different from an Albigensian who thought his interpretation was correct or a Manichaen or a Protestant or a Catholic, all of whom thought (and think) their interpretation was (is) correct? We, as humans, can sit back and try to sort through the myriad religions and sects of the world, trying to find the magic pill that is actually the truth ... or we can slowly but surely come to the inescapable conclusion that you can't all be right. In fact, the odds that ANY of you are are right is microscopic. What WE do, is actually pay attention to the world, measure it, observe it, categorize it and when we do, we find that there are patterns and when those patterns happen often enough that we can almost completely rely on them, they become theories. Speciation exists. Evolution exists. Both have been observed in real time by actual scientists (others have posted links I strongly suggest you follow). You can wilfully choose to ignore this in favour of your own interpretation but you will only be deceiving yourself.
  58. Neiland Robert from Canada writes: I love when it is pointed out that some of the greats in science (including Darwin) were not actually learned highbrows. It must somewhat deflate the Career University crowd's ego, who value their insights so preciously.
  59. A skeptical MD from Canada writes: Mr. Robert, please check your basic facts before posting. Darwin was indeed a learned man (nobody who has actually read Origin of Species would doubt it). I'm not sure what you mean by "highbrow". Darwin did well enough in boarding school to be admitted to medical school but left because of his somewhat overly sensitive nature. Subsequently he studied theology, geology, natural history and classics among other subjects before attaining a Bachelor''s degree from Cambridge. Bachelor's degrees were rare in the 1800's and a mark of a learned man.
    So, private school followed by medical school at University of Edinburg, followed by a degree from Cambridge. If that isn't learned, then what is?
  60. Martin Gladstone from Toronto, Canada writes: 99% of the species that have ever existed on this planet are now extinct. How intelligent is that? The facts are that DNA may change/mutate by chance conferring a slight advantage that helps a species through the theory of natural selection. Evolution is a fact that can clearly be established. Intelligent design cannot be supported by any measure - even the U.S Supreme Court threw it out of schools to uphold the constitutional division between church and state. If you believe in intelligent design you should believe in a flat earth with the cosmos revolving around it to be consistent.
  61. Jeff Pritchard from Canada writes: Neiland Robert from Canada writes: I love when it is pointed out that some of the greats in science (including Darwin) were not actually learned highbrows. It must somewhat deflate the Career University crowd's ego, who value their insights so preciously.

    >>>

    What's even better than that is the precise moment when someone who doesn't know what they're talking about suddenly realizes it.

    Priceless!
  62. S. Ives from Ottawa, Canada writes: I expected to read the 'same-old, same-old' comments... and I was not disappointed. On the other hand... I am. The same sterile debate by all parties.

    Does this properly belong as one of the 50 greatest books ever written?

    I will accept influential certainly (and I am no creationist, believe you me). But in the 60 comments (and what, 15 commentors), not one dwells on whether it is truly a great book, beyond that of being simply a great scientific work.

    I suggest it is a landmark philisophical text, in which the ideas espoused surpass the author's original intentions. Is that sufficient?

    I will be very intrigued to see the full list, and I will be impressed if any of the remaining selections are scientific. Go back an additional 300 years to see a real earth-mover... De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (Copernicus).
  63. Kenneth Knutson from Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada writes: tom h: that new species of stickleback...is it not still a fish?
  64. Ex Drone from Ottawa, Canada writes: Over the years, Creationists have brought up the same refuted arguments. Now, Intelligent Design neo-Creationists are reiterating a sub-set of those same arguments. To save time, these arguments and the scientific responses to them have been collated into a single indexed website:

    http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/

    It would be interesting to hear an argument with some new thinking or substance for a change.
  65. My Moniker is Better than Yours from Canada writes: Kenneth Knutson from Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada writes: tom h: that new species of stickleback...is it not still a fish?

    - Kenneth my good sir, either you still haven't yet understood the concept of speciation, or you are simply ignoring concepts of evolution because of your refusal to accept anything intelligent design. It's quite ironic that you accuse people who understand evolution of being ignorant.

    I see you also ignored my analogy posted at 28/01/08 at 8:58 AM EST

    Let us say that for the sake of argument, that the Bible has been accepted as scientific theory. What if I come to you and make the claim that I created Mt. Everest.

    Can you prove that I am wrong? Problem is that the Bible is scientific theory now, and nothing in it directly says that God created Mt. Everest, but neither does it say that I did as well.

    Can I prove I am right? Well, actually, upon searching my room, my journal has a note scribbled in saying, "I created Mt. Everest".

    I then demand that the Bible be edited, and a chapter added at the end that proclaims the many accomplishments I have contributed to existence. I further demand that it be taught to our children, and that the last 5 minutes of every sermon be dedicated to acknowledging my work.

    Do you see where I am getting at?
  66. d w from Canada writes: Darwinism is an outdated idea. Check out darwinismrefuted.com.
  67. harry schmidt from Shanghai, China, Canada writes: It must be cold in Moose Jaw. Very cold. So cold in fact that everthing above the jaw is like permafrost.
  68. Kenneth Knutson from Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada writes: When so called intelligent men have to resort to insults to answer a challenge to their beliefs it is an indication of a paucity of evidence to support those beliefs. I do not have time to reply to these childish taunts.
    When I first began to investigate attacks on the Bible by proponents of evolution I was led to the work of the one man who is considered to be the greatest scientific genius of all time...Isaac Newton.
    At his death Newton left a collection of writings on theology that was almost as large as his scientific writings. He believed in the Bible.. he said "I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any secular history whatsoever". He believed in an Intelligent Designer whom he called God...he said " In the absence of any other proof the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence".
    If you want to know more about this man's musings on science and theology there are some good biographies written about him, the one I like is "In the Presence of Creation: Isaac Newton and His Times".
    Newton's father was a prelate in the Church of England and Newton had been baptized in that church. This did not prevent him from challenging the teachings of that organization. He effectively demonstrated from the Bible itself that the Trinity doctrine was false.
    His writings on this subject were ignored by the Church and to this day the Trinity doctrine is still central to the teachings of both Catholic and Protestant churches.
    If this super-intelligent man, who could formulate and prove scientific theories way beyond the capabilities of his fellow scientists then and later, and could challenge the Church which reigned supreme at that time, and if he could do this and still retain his respect for the Bible (which he considered inspired by God) and his belief in an Intelligent Designer, then I thought that I should not be ashamed to hold similar ideas and I have endeavored to present them to you.
  69. Simon Pieman from Canada writes: Key, KK, you base your belief in ID on a scientist from four centuries ago, who was operating way before Darwin even wrote the book in question, before evolution was revealed as a theory.
    And you take your religious cues from the Old Testament.
    Wow, you're at the cutting edge of wisdom. Let's hope the Lord Almighty gives priority to men of retro-faith.
  70. Kenneth Knutson from Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada writes: Do the rest of you evolutionists agree with Simon Pieman that, because Newton lived a couple of hundred years before Darwin he was a lesser scientist?
    Who has replaced Darwin as the greatest scientist of all time...after all there must be somebody...Darwin lived what a hundred and fifty years ago? Surely we must all be smarter now than him...simple rule of evolution. Even Pieman himself must be smarter than any of them?
    Unbelievable thinking, Simon...you take my breath away.
    You sound like someone in his 20's...after all a young man is much smarter than an old man, right?
  71. Kenneth Knutson from Moose Jaw, Sask., Canada writes: In Florida, an atheist became incensed over the preparation of Easter and Passover holidays. He decided to contact his lawyer about the discrimination inflicted on atheists by the constant celebrations afforded to Christians and Jews with all their holidays, while atheists had no holiday to celebrate.



    The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the long passionate presentation by the lawyer, the Judge banged his gavel and declared, 'Case dismissed!' The lawyer immediately stood and objected to the ruling and said, 'Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and many other observances. Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah...yet my client and all other atheists have no such holiday!'



    The judge leaned forward in his chair and simply said, 'Obviously your client is too confused to even know about, much less celebrate, his own atheists' holiday!' The lawyer pompously said, 'Your Honor, we are unaware of any such holiday for atheists. Just when might that holiday be, your Honor?'



    The judge said, 'Well it comes every year on exactly the same date---April 1st! Since our calendar sets April 1st as 'April Fools Day,' consider that Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, in my opinion, if your client says there is no God, then by scripture , he is a fool, and April 1st is his holiday! Now have a good day and get out of my courtroom!!

    • Posted 29/01/08 at 11:03 AM EDT |