Bonus: Extras from Expelled producer interview

expelled 5.jpgThis week I interviewed Expelled producer Mark Mathis for my WorldNetDaily column.

The interview lasted an hour, and reading comments to my column from Darwinian apologists, I see Mathis covered many questions and misinformation: What exactly is Expelled about? Were Darwinian academics/scientists hoodwinked into being interviewed for the film? Did the film purposefully misinterpret their thoughts? What about that Scientific American review? Does teaching Intelligent Design violate the separation of Church and State? Is teaching ID just a backdoor attempt to teach religion in the schools?

Mathis has been conducting Q&A after Expelled screenings across the country and said the experience has been eye-opening. What was the biggest surprise, I asked?

Read his answer to that and all other questions on page 2.

What exactly is Expelled about?

Some commenters have wondered what Expelled is about. Explained Mathis, "The film is really about the academic persecution. It gets into some areas of social Darwinism: When a society embraces a materialist philosophy, what then are the applications? We get into Nazism and eugenics. There has been a tremendous amount of literature written about Darwinism ideas and Nazi ideas. Darwinists today want to deny any connection. We are not saying in the film there is a direct line, that Darwinism leads to Nazism, but that it is a necessary condition.

"And so we get into the cell, beautiful animation of what goes on inside the cell, continued Mathis. "We get onto some questions. One of the big problems with Darwinism doesn't talk about how life comes from nonlife. Darwinism starts with the cell, which seems to be by my way of thinking an intellectually dishonest approach. How can you start with the cell, when you don't describe how you get from inanimate matter to an extraordinarily complex organism? Darwinism doesn't address that."

expelled equation2.jpg[From Expelled discussion guide]

Nor can it be addressed. "I can tell you anecdotally based on all the different universities and professors I have encountered, my personal belief is you've got thousands upon thousands of scientists and students who look at the evidence and see Darwinism greatly lacking, but they don't say a word because they will be expelled. They know they will be treated as a pariah. They will compromise their career path."

Scientific American

"The big shock for me is the way the scientific establishment has responded in such a hostile way," said Mathis. "They are looking for any little crack they can to damage or discredit the film, to act as if the academic persecution hasn't been going on."

scientific 4.jpg

Mathis said when he screened Expelled in New York for Scientific American magazine, an American science journal, "there wasn't even a pretense of journalistic balance." [Read review here.]

Mathis said during the "too long" one-and-a-half hour interview following the screening, "It was just one attack question after another. They didn't hide the fact they were devoted Darwinists, and that they thought the premise of the film was completely inaccurate and driven by an agenda they felt like it was their job to dismantle."

Is Darwinism a religion?

expelled - darwin2.jpgWhat comes first these days, Darwinism as a scientific theory to be analyzed or an ideology to be protected? Responded Mathis, "Their philosophy of life influences how they interpret the data. They broad-brush: 'We don't know answers, but we are collecting data as to where this information come from.' But how is it that mutations are supposed to build all information, but our genetics show mutation destroys information? There are levels of complexity; this is difficult stuff. And there is no accountability. When you're in a biology department, and 90% of the people are all in agreement, they're all secularist atheists, you just run amuck."

How can this absolute power be uncorrupted? Said Mathis, "Through academic freedom laws. This is a way we can return some level of freedom to science where, even if Intelligent Design isn't taught, at least it needs to be discussed as an idea that is there. ID apologists want Darwinism clearly defined and fully taught, with all of its weaknesses."

Are evolution and ID compatible?

Continued Mathis, "Here's something that is important that people paying attention to the debate should know: Evolution is something ID theorists say is a reasonable. But the problem is where does the information come from? These two mechanisms - Darwinism or random mutation - are not going to get it done. But if there was programming behind it that allowed evolution to work, that would be a plausible idea. This is not opposed to evolution specifically. But Darwinists cannot accept this. Darwinism is a specific form of evolution which excludes everything but material processes. We say if evolution is true, there has to be some programming, ID, behind it. Theistic evolution: a superior being is behind it."

Is teaching ID a breach?

expelled textbook2.jpgWhat about the separation of church and state? Responded Mathis, "That is a banner they wave. But wait a minute. Then we're not going to be able to teach evolution at all in school, because religion, church, is deeply seated in the science class via evolution. Atheism qualifies as religion. This is part of the problem, they have. This is core important piece of this debate. The scientific establishments wants to pretend they are not driving a secularist atheist agenda. They want to pretend they are on some high ground, unencumbered by philosophical baggage. That is preposterous. Every human being who ever lived is affected by philosophical baggage.

They act as if people who favor ID are driven by a belief system in God and the scientists driving Darwinism aren't driven by atheism and secularism. But both sides are driven. [Graphic, left, from Expelled's discussion guide.] The high priests in control are pointing: 'If you believe in ID you're being religious nut cases driven by your religion. But not us. We're just driven by the evidence.' That's bogus. Their philosophy is impacting how they look at the evidence. They are teaching atheism by default. There is no way to get around this question other than to say let's talk about both sides. Here's the evidence for design. Here are the weaknesses. Here is the evidence for Darwinism evolution. Here are its weaknesses. Now decide for yourself."

Backdoor route?

What about the complaint wanting to teach ID is just a sneaky way to teach religion in schools? Responded Mathis, "This is a red herring, most interesting to me. The biggest complaint that people who all the power in academia give about ID is this is a way to backdoor religion in the schools. I can destroy that myth in less than a minute. Line up everyone on the political atheists - religious atheists on left and those on the right and everyone in between, and ask this one question: Who among you wants religion taught in the science class? No one will raise his or her hand. Fundamentalists don't want that. No one wants a science teacher teaching religion. What religious people want is an honest discussion in the science class about ID."

Is abortion as it relates to eugenics broached in Expelled?

expelled sanger2.jpgWhat about Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood, and abortion? Said Mathis, "We discuss that in the film. If you can devalue human life... if you're no more valuable than an ant or bacterium, if this is a "fetus," at what point is this a baby? We talk about PP. [Graphic, right, is from Expelled's discussion guide.] PP is a direct outgrowth of Darwinism because of Margaret Sanger and her belief in eugenics. That's part of what has gotten the Darwinists unglued. The eugenics movement is directly impactedby Darwinism.

What about complaints about Michael Moore type editing or Darwinists being interviewed under false pretenses? Responded Mathis: "You haven't heard any complaints by scientists reviewed in the film about that sort of editing. They are saying rather that they were interviewed under false pretenses. Here's the deal on that. I set up most of those interviews. I did most of those interviews. We told them we were doing a film that examines the cultural flashpoints of ID, evolution - 100% accurate. I sent many of these people the questions in advance. What journalists do that? We went over the interviews with them in advance They did the interview, signed a release, and were paid for their time. Two important things:

1. When you're interviewing someone you want honest answers. So you don't fill them in with every bit of background. It's going to affect their answers, and you don't want that. You want them to be as straight up as possible.

2. The important question is, what happened with the interview footage afterwards? What then will be done with those interviews? Will it be edited is such a way that the person talking feels his or her words were twisted? Ask them. They will say everything they say on the film is completely consistent with what they say publicly.

expelled graphic.jpgAny other enlightenments through the process of making Expelled?

Mathis: "The big wake up for me in this whole deal? I am stunned with the bad information, incomplete information that pops up on the net. The Internet grabs it, repeats it, and it gets misstated so many times it becomes fact. I'm stunned by people who pick stuff up and run with it. We've read accounts are so fantastically absurd, you don't know where to start. This makes me very concerned. The society we live in, truth is not valued."


Comments:

And PiP, I asked Mathis about your comment that Expelled had to pay 100 FL students to attend a film screening, and he had no idea what you were talking about, i.e., untrue rumor.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 11, 2008 11:03 AM


come up with a scientific theory that doesnt start out first with the supernatural

Posted by: TexasRed at April 11, 2008 11:28 AM


Please...

Their desperation is palpable:
http://getexpelled.com/schools.php

Posted by: Laura at April 11, 2008 11:28 AM


Excellent interview, Jill!!

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 11:33 AM


Oh just to let you know the book was delivered to my home and when I go back I'll look forward to reading it!

Posted by: Jess at April 11, 2008 11:45 AM


What book did you get, Jess? :) I got "On Message".

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 11:51 AM


I got that one too! Can't wait to read it!

Posted by: Jess at April 11, 2008 11:52 AM


I have to admit, that graphic with "stupidity" and stuff is funny... :)

Though I think Stupidity overlaps more with politics because never in my life have I seen more stupid decisions made than those by our state and federal governments.

Posted by: Rae at April 11, 2008 11:53 AM


Cool, Jess! :)

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 11:55 AM


This is really depressing:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1727658,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics&iref=werecommend

Posted by: Rae at April 11, 2008 12:07 PM


This is really depressing:

*****************
What was really upsetting to me is how many of those infants had drugs in their systems because the mother was taking drugs - thats a big percentage of what constituted abuse

Posted by: TexasRed at April 11, 2008 12:22 PM


That poor Mathis guy. On the one had, it sucks that he thinks making a propaganda film is an appropriate way to get his message out. On the other hand, it's hard not to feel a little pity for someone whose religious convictions are so threatened by science.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 11, 2008 12:43 PM


Mr. Berger:

Here we go again. Another Biblically illiterate person dissing the Bible based on cliched thinking borrowed from "birds of a feather" or should I say other "lambs led to slaughter" rather than on a personal study of it.

I never wrote that you said things, I said that you "implied" them. There's a difference.

My friend, if you were a student of the Bible, you would understand that in the New Testament that Peter had a dream which apart from the purpose of the dream confirming that the Gospel was now to be preached to the Gentile world, that the the requirements of the law, which had no power to save, were now fulfilled by the grace of God because of Jesus Christ's death on the cross. All prohibitons regarding the consumption of unclean meats were lifted. Read the account in the book of Acts. You want to challenge God on that, go ahead.

And the words of the Bible specifically condemn homosexuality, not us. That means that the author of the Bible, who we believe is God, condemns it and if we didn't believe what He said, we would be, well, hypocrites.

Further, anyone, even a liberal who bases his life on natural this and natural that can know that the homosexual act is not natural at all. So where's the consistency of thought in your assertion Mr. Berger? It seems to me that your type constructs a world of chaos and randomness that is at odds with science itself but yet guarantees that science's claim are so irrefutable as to be able to erase from history that God even exists. Further, why would an evolutionst, who believes in the "survival of the fittest", espouse a lifestyle whose proponents have no progeny? Do you want homosexuals to die out Mr. Berger?

If you read the Genesis account Mr. Berger, it explains how God took a cosmos that was in dissarray and chaos and by His word, spoke it into order. Could it be Mr. Berger, that perhaps we just don;t fully understand God's infinte mind and that evolution is a humanly feeble attempt at explaingin something we are incapable of knowing. Ever heard of faith Mr. Berger? The substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.

You see Mr. Berger, my faith in God, accelerates me light years ahead of any scientist. Why, because by faith I have the infinite mind of Christ and not the fiite mind of a human being.
Yes Mr. Berger, wisdom begins with the fear of God.

And Mr. Berger, if I am a Christian who believes in creation in a literal 6 days, why am I forced to pay taxes to a school system that disses what I believe? Why do I have to spend twice the money to send my kids to schools that teach the truth? Guess I'm just screwed, huh? And that instituonalized intolerance of me is OK with you? But yet you wouldn't have the courage and out of love admonish a homosexual that his lifestyle will lead him to a physical and mental life of pain and anguish and a spiritual life of eternal death? Your type is extrmely hard to understand.

I don't think YEC believes the earth is only 6,000 years old, I think the thought is that it's more like 10,000 years old.

And yes, the Bible can be used as an
excuse to justify or be against anything especially by those that don't study it and refuse to be transformed by it's loving message. You know, people like you. However, the same is true for science which is used to justify that God doesn't exist and therefore, can live life as they see fit making gods of themselves. I would say that's pretty dumb as well.

Your thinking is absurd, inconsistent and intellectually dishonest.

And TR:

You said the Garden of Eden account of creation was a myth, correct? Do you now see where the the belief in the tentative theory of evolution leads to and how it can be so destructive? Because if it is wrong, your statement is utterly stupid beyond description. I am going to predict, that God will have the last laugh on this matter and that the theory of evolution will indeed become a relic on the dung heap of bad science. I predict that now unknown facts will be discovered that will cause a paradigm shift in how science explains life. The theory of evolution is a house of cards and it proponents will someday be pitied as well as those who, "knew not what they do".

Posted by: HisMan at April 11, 2008 12:46 PM


HisMan lunkheads like you make all xtians look ignorant illiterate and stupid

Posted by: TexasRed at April 11, 2008 1:08 PM


TexasRed:

Tell me TR, what key is that chord in? Must be b-flat or perhaps f-minor, but certainly not c-sharp, of course not to be confused with the state of your mind.

You must have a very large mirror though.

Besides "x" implies a variable or unknown. What does "x" mean? Mar, Vene, Croa? You've pretty much lumped a great deal of the world in your use of "x" in front of tians. Perhaps you meant to say garlic nose Italians? Well, that would be quite a good guess and consistent with your support of Boromaniac.

By the way, are you an xan? Or just a wanna be xan? I know, don't mess with xas.

Who or what do you believe in TR? And what's the payoff? Drugs, sex and rock and roll? Or perhaps unresolved hatred of a theist? There's counselors for that kind of stuff you know. However, I'd stay away from the secular ones.

Finally, how I appear to you is of no concern to me for I know in whom I believe. And, my Bible has warned me that I am part of a vast minority anyway.

Posted by: HisMan at April 11, 2008 1:38 PM


HisMan, please don't take this as an insult because I don't mean it to be, but I think you are probably one of the more well-versed Christians here and I'm wondering if you can explain something for me?

Is the entire Bible meant to be taken literally? Should you follow all of the instructions inside the Bible?

I know I've heard people argue that Jesus changed things, and some people only take the "rules" of the New Testament, but what are your thoughts on this? Do the rules of the Old Testament also apply?

Posted by: Edyt at April 11, 2008 1:48 PM


"If you read the Genesis account Mr. Berger, it explains how God took a cosmos that was in dissarray and chaos and by His word, spoke it into order."

Ah, but does it explain how it got into such dissarrary and chaos to begin with? Was it God's fault, or some other God's fault?

"Further, anyone, even a liberal who bases his life on natural this and natural that can know that the homosexual act is not natural at all."

Which "homosexual act" are you referring to? Kissing? oral sex? anal sex? Straight people do all those "unnatural" things as well.

"And Mr. Berger, if I am a Christian who believes in creation in a literal 6 days, why am I forced to pay taxes to a school system that disses what I believe?"

For the same reason that if you were a Christian who believed the Sun revolved around the Earth you would have to pay taxes to support a school system that taught your kids that you were mistaken in your beliefs. You are also mistaken about the 6 day creation thing. Deal with it.

Posted by: Hal at April 11, 2008 2:01 PM


Actually, homosexuality does appear in nature, particularly in species higher up on the evolutionary line with larger populations who can be easily threatened with disease and famine.

Incidentally, in these populations, infanticide also increases. It seems wanting to kill one's young is not just a human condition...

Posted by: Edyt at April 11, 2008 2:06 PM


Jill,

If you haven't noticed already, Mathis is a liar.

http://theframeproblem.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/producers-of-expelled-trying-to-bribe-christian-schools-into-forcing-their-students-to-see-their-movie/

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 11, 2008 2:13 PM


http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/a_flop.php

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 11, 2008 2:16 PM


See, they payed schools to send them to the movie; they payed for a screening for legislators, and so far, not much interest.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 11, 2008 2:17 PM


PiP, I know some people were saying it was going to be the most seen documentary in theaters, or something to that effect... do you know if that's actually held out?

Posted by: Edyt at April 11, 2008 2:20 PM


"You haven't heard any complaints by scientists reviewed in the film about that sort of editing."


http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins


"He chose just one (it would have taken too long to explain them all) purely as an illustration of the kind of properties such a theory must have. He happened to choose the theory proposed by the Scottish chemist Graham Cairns-Smith, that organic life was preceded by a strange and intriguing world of replicating patterns on the surfaces of crystals in inorganic clays. At no time did Ruse say he believed the Cairns-Smith theory, only that it was the KIND of theory that scientists are actively examining, as a CANDIDATE for the origin of evolution. Stein just loved it. Mud! MUD! The sarcasm in his grating, nasal voice was palpable. Maybe this was when Ruse realised that he had been had. Certainly it was at this point that he started to show signs of exasperation, although he may still have thought that Stein was merely stupid, rather than pursuing a malevolent and clandestine agenda. Stein kept returning, throughout the film, to the phrase "on the backs of crystals", and the sycophantic audience in the Minneapolis cinema dutifully tittered every time. "

". Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings. ... Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE."

....not taken out of context? Oh please.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 11, 2008 2:26 PM


"PiP, I know some people were saying it was going to be the most seen documentary in theaters, or something to that effect... do you know if that's actually held out?"


I can't really make that prediction but I will tell you this:

1. I don't see it doing better than the number one best seller, Farhenheit 9/11, or an Inconvenient Truth.
2. They haven't turned up a whole lot of people in theatres based on personal accounts.
3. They are known for planting people in the audience.
4. They are purposely trying to screen out atheists or who they think will dissent at the pre-screenings. (http://evolvinginkansas.blogspot.com/2008/04/expelled-paranoia-runs-deep-in-tempe-az.html)
5. By the day they are generating more bad publicity.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 11, 2008 2:43 PM


"Actually they didn't. The biology professors at Pepperdine assure me that their mostly Christian students fully accept the theory of evolution. So who were these people embracing Stein's screed against science? Extras. According to Lee Kats, associate provost for research and chair of natural science at Pepperdine, "the production company paid for the use of the facility just as all other companies do that film on our campus" but that "the company was nervous that they would not have enough people in the audience so they brought in extras. Members of the audience had to sign in and a staff member reports that no more than two to three Pepperdine students were in attendance. Mr. Stein's lecture on that topic was not an event sponsored by the university." And this is one of the least dishonest parts of the film."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-shermer&sc=rss

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 11, 2008 2:48 PM


Edyt:

No insult taken. One of my un-Christain attribtues is that many times I give what I get. Believe me, the Holy Spirit is always reminding me of that.

There are portions of the Bible that can be taken literally and other portions that are to be taken metaphorically. That is why it is so necessary to study the Bible as a whole balancing it's claims against each other.

For example, the Bible states that there is a literal heaven and a literal hell.

The metaphors for hell are an unquenchable fire, a lake of fire, outer darkness, eternal destruction, etc. Now, do I know everything about hell? Of course not. And to be honest with you I cannot begin to comprehend its horror. But, I know enough that it's a place I want to avoid. Having said that, it would be a huge mistake to assume from a non-literal viewpoint that hell doesn't exist at all. My philosophy of hell is that it is literally all that is separated from God in the eternal realm and I came to that conclusion accepting metaphorical teaching. Therein lies the rub.

Same about heaven. It's described as a place where there's no death, no sufferring, no weeping. A place beyond our ability to imagine. A metaphor describing heaven is a place with many mansions. Now, do I think that heaven looks like Savanah, GA? I don't know that, however, man, I do like the south and wouldn't mind spending an eternity in a place like that.

And the Bible is not a rule book. The law was given to show that we are in a fallen condition and left to our own ends we perish. Christ came so that the requirements of the law could be fulfilled despite the fact that we could not keep the law. Centuries of Jewish history proved that. That's the beauty of Christianity when it says the truth shall set you free. This is why Paul said "all have sinned and fall short of teh glory of God". Not one of us can measure up to God's standard, not any priest, or Pope, or guru, no one.

By the rules of the Old Testament I think you are talking about the Torah? Look the entire OT points to one person Christ. Read Chapter 53 of Isaiah which is a beautiful and heart rending prophecy about Christ written hundreds of years prior.

I think you need to read the Book of Acts and Book of Romans.

The Book of Acts describes the "evolution" (I know) or better said, the transition of God's revelation through the Jews to now being revealed to the the whole world. Focus on Paul's conflict with Peter.

The Book of Romans speaks about God's grace and how faith is the access to that grace, not rule keeping.

God could care less if you are able to keep a set of rules, He already knew you can't ("while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us"). He loves you so much He wants to be in an eternal realtionship with you. Now that's something I can get really, really excited about!

Want to understand God's heart and pathos for you, read the Book of Hosea.

I hope this answers your questions. He's knockin' on the door Edyt. Will you answer? Go ahead, He's is one magnificent and awesome God.

Gotta go, Peace.

Posted by: HisMan at April 11, 2008 2:50 PM


Also Jill you s hould watch that south park I linked you to.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 11, 2008 2:50 PM


Hier, don't feel too sorry for him, he is a dishonest man.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 11, 2008 2:54 PM


Hey Texas Red.... you first

Posted by: er19ic75 at April 11, 2008 3:00 PM


PIP,

Richard Dawkins is on "Real Time with Bill Maher" tonight on HBO. They always have an online session after the show where you can discuss and debate with Bill and the guests. It's on his website.

Posted by: Laura at April 11, 2008 3:29 PM


Hier, don't feel too sorry for him, he is a dishonest man.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 11, 2008 2:54 PM

I know, I waver back and forth between pity and disgust. Pity for a man who will stoop to the level that he has in attempt to defend what he must think of at heart as a very weak faith, and disgust for his fundamentally dishonest tactics. I've been following this story off and on, and Mathis just comes across as such a weakling.

On the other hand (no offense PIP), personally, I get a kick out of seeing Jill trying to yoke the pro-lifers to the creationists. If they could just get the flat-earthers on board, it would be a trifecta of whatever the opposite of credibility is.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 11, 2008 3:56 PM


STOP THE DEBATE!

Here's a picture of Ben Stein with Bill Nye the Science Guy on "America's MOST Smartest Model."
http://www.buddytv.com/articles/Image/AMSM/amsm-ep4.jpg

If that doesn't make him an authority on the origin of the species, I just don't know what does...

Posted by: Laura at April 11, 2008 4:09 PM


Also Jill you s hould watch that south park I linked you to.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 11, 2008 2:50 PM
***********************
I dont think Jills heart could take SOUTHPARK - she might wind up just hyperventillating and keeling over ....

Posted by: TexasRed at April 11, 2008 4:17 PM


Who or what do you believe in TR? And what's the payoff? Drugs, sex and rock and roll? Or perhaps unresolved hatred of a theist? There's counselors for that kind of stuff you know. However, I'd stay away from the secular ones.

**************
What do I believe HisMan? I believe youre an idiot. Youve convinced me. I dont do drugs - never have. My sex life is none of your business even if youd get off on the details. And yes, I do like rock n roll. Contempt for you and your idiocy is not 'hatred' and has nothing to do with my attitude towards genuine xtians. Youre not one. I have no doubt I know a great deal more about counseling than you could ever hope to know. As I said, lunkheads like you make people think all xtians are ignorant illiterate and stupid.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 11, 2008 4:21 PM


Hey Texas Red.... you first

Posted by: er19ic75 at April 11, 2008 3:00 PM
********************
And that means what?

Posted by: TexasRed at April 11, 2008 4:23 PM


Mathis fundamentally misunderstands scientific inquiry in general and evolution in particular, but he's not going to let that stop him from telling us all what the "Darwinists" believe. But why should anyone listen to him?

He did mislead the people he interviewed; does anyone honestly think that people like Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott and PZ Myers would have allowed themselves to be used for a cheap propaganda piece that smears evolutionary science using the corpses of Holocaust victims? They thought they were doing a real documentary.

I sent many of these people the questions in advance. What journalists do that?

I'm confused. Is Mathis claiming that this should have been a tipoff for his victims that he's not a real journalist? Is he admitting he's not a real journalist? BTW, according to Scott, it's not unusual for interviewers to give their subjects questions ahead of time.

"The big shock for me is the way the scientific establishment has responded in such a hostile way," said Mathis.

Yeah, I don't know why people would get hostile when you mislead them, misrepresent their life's work, and blame their ideas for the Holocaust. Scientists are just so darned unreasonable that way.

The society we live in, truth is not valued.

...he said, with no apparent irony.

Posted by: Jen R at April 11, 2008 4:32 PM


From the original post:

I can tell you anecdotally based on all the different universities and professors I have encountered, my personal belief is you've got thousands upon thousands of scientists and students who look at the evidence and see Darwinism greatly lacking...

How very scientific of Mathis. Ask any scientist what credibility he or she gives anecdotal evidence with no hard statistics to back it up.

No one wants a science teacher teaching religion. What religious people want is an honest discussion in the science class about ID.

This is incredibly disingenuous of him. ID=creationism=religion. There is no science in ID. By definition, its backers want one religion's creation myth discussed in science classes, in a nation founded on the principle of freedom of religion. And they wonder why people object!

They are teaching atheism by default.

No, actually they are teaching science, which has nothing to do with religion, and does not express any opinion on whether god(s) exist or not. Many science teachers are devout Christians who know better than to impose their religion on their students.

Here's the evidence for design.

The bible, a book written by Jews and Christians approximately two thousand years ago, copied and edited in the meantime by monks and church officials with varying agendas. That's it. That is the entire evidence for "intelligent design" aka creationism.

Here are the weaknesses.

There is no physical evidence to support the notion of creationism, whatsoever. None.

Here is the evidence for Darwinism evolution.

Darwin's original theory, based on his observations of live species at the time, has since been confirmed in the fossil record by archaeologists, and in our very genes, by geneticists. There is currently no known evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution. Except the bible.

Here are its weaknesses.

There are gaps in the fossil record. That is to say, that not all expected historical developments of species have been found. Yet. Also, the theory of evolution does not yet account for the origin of life on this planet. But scientists are quite open about this. Nobody claims to know the origin of life, except the bible.

Now decide for yourself.

Hmm. An overwhelming mountain of physical evidence, or the bible? Which is more likely to be accurate about the evolution of life?

Jill, did you ask Mathis why he was so afraid of letting biologist PZ Myers, who was interviewed in the movie, into a screening of Expelled?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php

Or why other biologists have also not been let in?

http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/04/expelled_in_tempe_the_expected.php

One commenter wrote about getting into a screening:
I just got back from the theater and yes there was indeed a screening. I wasn't on the list, but managed to get in anyway. After getting interrogated as to which church I was with and finally approval from the man behind the curtain whom I never saw, I was admitted into the theater just as the movie was starting.

If Expelled and "intelligent design" aren't about trying to get religion taught in science classes, then why is Mathis so interested in which church a potential audience member attends?

Another great quote from an audience member at an Expelled screening, regarding the host of a Q&A session, who identified himself as Stephen Schmidt, a personal friend of the producer:
My favorite question came from the little boy next to me, who asked, "What is your background in science?" Schmidt looked taken aback and said, "Me? I don't have any."

Case closed.

Posted by: Ray at April 11, 2008 4:36 PM


I dont think Jills heart could take SOUTHPARK - she might wind up just hyperventillating and keeling over ...."

LOL you are probably right.


"I know, I waver back and forth between pity and disgust. Pity for a man who will stoop to the level that he has in attempt to defend what he must think of at heart as a very weak faith, and disgust for his fundamentally dishonest tactics. I've been following this story off and on, and Mathis just comes across as such a weakling."

Yeah I know what you mean. He can believe all he wants, but misleading people and lying? Why the need?


"Here's a picture of Ben Stein with Bill Nye the Science Guy on "America's MOST Smartest Model.""

hehehehehe. Also I don't have HBO :((

Ray, she already addressed the Myers thing- by regurgitating the companies' press release.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/lying_by_press_release.php

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 11, 2008 4:45 PM


If Expelled and "intelligent design" aren't about trying to get religion taught in science classes, then why is Mathis so interested in which church a potential audience member attends?

Maybe he wanted a balanced sample group.

Posted by: Janet at April 11, 2008 5:50 PM


Many science teachers are devout Christians who know better than to impose their religion on their students.

It doesn't matter to me how the World came to be, but the intensity of the debate is intriguing. Why are some scientists so threatened by God or "religion". Because they need to be right without a God?

There is no physical evidence to support the notion of creationism, whatsoever. None.

A book - the bible?


Posted by: Janet at April 11, 2008 6:02 PM


Maybe he wanted a balanced sample group.

I am sorry I can't quite tell from the context...are you being serious or ironic? 'Cause if you are being serious, then that is really sad (balance of what, Christian denominations?), but if you are being ironic, it is brilliant!

Posted by: Ray at April 11, 2008 6:15 PM


I can't wait until more reviews come in. It'll be hilarious.

The score thus far:

Scientific American - the movie sucks

Fox News - the movie sucks

Wing Nut Daily - We totally loved it!!

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 11, 2008 6:36 PM


The Bible is not a science textbook, Janet. Nor is creationism backed by ANY science whatsoever.

Remember how we used to think unicorns existed, and then we discovered the narwhals? Well, when midieval Europeans found the tusks, they thought they came from unicorns.

But unicorns don't exist. The tusks did not prove they existed.

And the earth was not created in six days. The Bible does not prove the earth was created in six days.

In other words, feel free to believe in unicorns. (What? They don't exist? Preposterous!)

Posted by: Edyt at April 11, 2008 6:44 PM


Hieronymous, Roger Friedman, who is the writer of the review you mention, is a flaming liberal. There is nothing conservative about him.

Good try, though. You got me to look!

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 6:55 PM


The Bible is not a science textbook, Janet. Nor is creationism backed by ANY science whatsoever.

It is a historical document, Edyt.

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 6:56 PM


Big deal, Bethany. We have historical documents from all over the world saying humans came from an egg to vomit to lightning bolts and whatever else anyone could think up at the time. Google "Creation Myths" and see how many different stories there are! All coming from historic documents and paintings and sculptures...

Are they all correct too?

Posted by: Edyt at April 11, 2008 7:11 PM


It is a historical document, Edyt.

The vast majority of the world's population is not Christian and would not agree with that assessment of the bible, Bethany. You, Janet, and the rest of you will have to do better than that at providing physical evidence for the veracity of creationism.

Posted by: Ray at April 11, 2008 7:14 PM


Believe me TexasRed, I have absoluteley no interest in your sex life. Now that I think of it I can't imagine anyone who would.

But really, there's gotta be a reason for your hatred of Christians since I have evidence that you hated them before you even started posting on this site.

Tell me, was your daddy an intinerant preacher man?

And Hal, yes I am dealing with this takeover by the looney left. Stay tuned.......daffy.

Posted by: HisMan at April 11, 2008 7:17 PM


Hal:

If you don't know what a homosexual act is I suggest you ask any public school educated 3rd grader. They are very good at drawing stick figures to suit your level of aptitude.

Posted by: HisMan at April 11, 2008 7:23 PM


I don't expect you to agree with this, Edyt, but:

http://www.carm.org/40_objections/40-4.htm#_1_35

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 7:24 PM


The Holy Bible....The #1 best-selling Book of all-time....more than SIX BILLION sold!!!!

http://home.comcast.net/~antaylor1/bestsellingbooks.html

Praise God!

Posted by: JLM at April 11, 2008 7:26 PM


And, my Bible has warned me that I am part of a vast minority anyway.

Hisman,
I am both proud and humbled to be your sister and stand with you in this vast minority!!!

GREAT posts (as always!)

:)

Posted by: JLM at April 11, 2008 7:28 PM


Ray:

The veracity of creationism????????????

I think I am going to split a side laughing on the floor. This is beyond understanding that a person that can read and write can even ask such a question. This is gross evidence of the failure of our public school system to provide a good education to this generation.

Open the shade, turn off the television, leave the computer screen, go outside, look up, look out. See that tree? See the sky? Smell the air and the cool breeze on your face.

Now if you don't want to do that, take your hand, turn it palm side up. See all those lines called finger prints? They're just a little bit of evidence of the veracity of creationism.
Oh, you're wearing gloves or are those blinders?

Posted by: HisMan at April 11, 2008 7:36 PM


My Bible has also warned me about people who would mock the Word of God and His believers:

Jude 1:17-19

17 But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold.

18 They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires."

19 These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.

Posted by: JLM at April 11, 2008 7:38 PM


Open the shade, turn off the television, leave the computer screen, go outside, look up, look out. See that tree? See the sky? Smell the air and the cool breeze on your face.

Now if you don't want to do that, take your hand, turn it palm side up. See all those lines called finger prints? They're just a little bit of evidence of the veracity of creationism.

Hisman, just so I get this right, you are suggesting that because the world is here, God must have created it? And you wonder why a statement like that is controversial?

The fact that the world is here is evidence only that the world is here. Anything about how it came to be, without specific evidence to support it, is pure conjecture.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2008 7:55 PM


7:55 is me.

Posted by: Ray at April 11, 2008 7:56 PM


There are portions of the Bible that can be taken literally and other portions that are to be taken metaphorically. That is why it is so necessary to study the Bible as a whole balancing it's claims against each other.

Then how do you know which parts to be taken literally or metaphorically? For example, I've heard people claim that the creation story is a metaphor, while others take it as fact. Who is the authority on the metaphorical/literal aspects of the Bible?

The reason I ask these questions is because I often see Christians doing a sort of "pick and choose" deal with what they believe. (Usually this involves picking out Bible verses to support their point of view, even if another Bible verse directly contradicts it)

Jews, for example, follow the Torah, while most born-again Christians claim Jesus changed the way people were supposed to live their lives.
My question is: Is all of the Bible equally valid? If not, who is the authority about which parts should be taken literally/metaphorically or just left as a historical account?

Posted by: Edyt at April 11, 2008 8:10 PM


My question is: Is all of the Bible equally valid? If not, who is the authority about which parts should be taken literally/metaphorically or just left as a historical account?

Edyt,

If you really want to know the answer to this, and I mean this honestly without any sarcasm...you need to do this first:

Acknowledge that Jesus Christ is God; that He came to earth as a man in order to live the sinless life that you cannot live; that He died in your place, so that you would not have to pay the penalty for sin that you deserve.

Confess your past life of sin -- living for yourself and not obeying God.

Admit you are ready to trust Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord.

You may wish to pray something like this: (not this, but something similar!)

Heavenly Father, I know that I have sinned against you and that my sins separate me from you. I am truly sorry. I now want to turn away from my past sinful life and turn to you for forgiveness. Please forgive me, and help me avoid sinning again. I believe that your son, Jesus Christ, died for my sins, was resurrected from the dead, is alive, and hears my prayer. I invite Jesus to become the Lord of my life, to rule and reign in my heart from this day forward. Please send your Holy Spirit to help me obey You, and to do Your will for the rest of my life. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen

Then, before you pick up the bible to read it, pray for God's wisdom through the Holy Spirit to fill you so that you will understand His word.

Until these things happen, you can ask many, many questions, and get many, many answers and still not understand.

Ephesians 1:17-25

17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:

22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Posted by: JLM at April 11, 2008 8:29 PM


The reason I ask these questions is because I often see Christians doing a sort of "pick and choose" deal with what they believe. (Usually this involves picking out Bible verses to support their point of view, even if another Bible verse directly contradicts it)

Jews, for example, follow the Torah, while most born-again Christians claim Jesus changed the way people were supposed to live their lives.

Edyt,
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to bombard you..but you did ask! I'm "butting in", I know, so if you would like for me to stop, please let me know!

The Jews do not believe that the Messiah has come yet. They do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and died for their sins. Therefore, they are still living by the Old Testament law. The law could never be followed by anyone perfectly. Jesus was the only One who ever followed the law perfectly. Jesus came to fulfill the law. Thus, born-again Christians believe that Jesus is indeed the Messiah, died for their sins, and rose again the third day. By believing in Him, their sins are cleansed...unlike the Jews that still believe that they need to follow the law in order for their sins to be cleansed.

It is easy to see why the bible would seem to contradict itself. However, it does not. That's why HisMan said that it is important to study the bible as a whole.

Does that make a little sense?

Posted by: JLM at April 11, 2008 8:40 PM


All ID says is that something started the universe in motion.

Most scientists believe in the Big Bang, but the question that remains is what created it? That is the question that those who look at ID are saying. What started the Big Bang? What was behind it? Why did it happen? The Universe and all that is in it is to orderly and complex to be an accident, or happenstance.

As a Christian evolution does not scare me (and I don't believe the earth was created in 6 human days. We are confined by space and time, God is not. God already told us His days are not the same as ours)

Up until the last century and a half, the forefathers of science like Newton, Galileo and Copernicus and so forth were all Christians. They saw science as a way to prove God was active in the world. They saw reason, thought, ability to explore and experiment as a gift from God. They did not view science as being in conflict with Faith.

The debate came when scientists changed direction and decided that humans should replace God and become the Creator. In lies the problem with evolution. It takes the Creator out of creation. And the Theory of Evolution is just that a theory.

I have no problem with that fact that individual species evolve, we see it in how tall we are now compared to 100 years ago. But there is NO evidence of species mating with other species. So I think there is no missing link between apes and people bc we were created seperate.

And yes today's evolutionists are atheists. Their aim is to destroy religion and faith, especially Christianity. They see faith as evil and needs to be destroyed. However, they are losing ground, as Christianity is growing and is the largest faith in the world. Why bc evolution and atheism cannot answer the questions that really matter, who and I, where and who do I belong to and what is my purpose. Those are things we search for our entire lives. God said He has written on everyone's heart a longing to know Him. We just choose to answer that call or ignore it.

Our knowledge and understanding is so limited. We have just begun to see and understand the universe and ourselves. And we will NEVER have all the answers, bc we are not God.

Posted by: Tara at April 11, 2008 8:54 PM


:)

Posted by: lesforlife at April 11, 2008 8:57 PM


Mathis:

"When you're in a biology department, and 90% of the people are all in agreement, they're all secularist atheists, you just run amuck."

Would anyone find it strange that 90% of people (more, I'd wager!) in the physics and chemistry departments are in agreement on the fundamentals of their disciplines?

Mathis is factually challenged on the "they're all secularist atheists" thing as well. In 2005, Ecklund and Scheitle surveyed scientists at 21 "elite research universities" in the U.S. This is how biologists answered the question, "Which one of the following statements comes closest to expressing what you believe about God?"

"I do not believe in God." 41%
"I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out." 29.9%
"I believe in a higher power, but it is not God." 7.7%
"I believe in God sometimes." 4.1%
"I have some doubts, but I believe in God." 10%
"I have no doubts about God's existence." 7.4%

That's 41, 70.9, or 78.6% atheist, depending on your definition. (I'd probably call it 70.9, but would want to talk to the people in the "I do not know" group first.)

Now, that's a large-to-very-large number of atheists in the biology departments at "elite research universities", but not all.

Posted by: Jen R at April 11, 2008 9:09 PM


JLM, so you have to pray to join your super secret club before you can get answers to fairly basic questions about it? I'll pass on that offer, thank you.

Posted by: Ray at April 11, 2008 9:10 PM


By the way, the physicists' responses to those questions were 40.8%, 29.4%, 8.1%, 2.8%, 12.8%, and 6.2% respectively. The chemists' responses were 26.6%, 28.6%, 9.4%, 6.3%, 18.2%, and 10.9%. So, the chemists are a bit more godly than the biologists, and the physicists are about the same.

Posted by: Jen R at April 11, 2008 9:20 PM


JLM, why do I have to become a Christian to understand the Bible's validity and who has the authority to interpret it correctly? Is this book magical and only sensical to Christians?

Posted by: Edyt at April 11, 2008 9:24 PM


JLM, so you have to pray to join your super secret club before you can get answers to fairly basic questions about it? I'll pass on that offer, thank you.

Not a "secret club", Ray. This "club" you refer to has been around for ages and has never been a secret! Come join us! God is knocking :)

Posted by: JLM at April 11, 2008 9:25 PM


However, they are losing ground, as Christianity is growing and is the largest faith in the world.

Sorry Tara.

Posted by: Edyt at April 11, 2008 9:26 PM


All ID says is that something started the universe in motion.


The debate came when scientists changed direction and decided that humans should replace God and become the Creator. In lies the problem with evolution. It takes the Creator out of creation.

Don't you see how contradicting this is. At first it is "ID basically says something started everything in motion" (a form of deism perhaps? Maybe got the first life form and let evolution take the rest?)

Then you say, "evolution is the problem."

Just admit it, IDers!! The movement is fundamentally opposed to evolution because of a false idea that in conflicts with religion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 11, 2008 9:29 PM


In fairness, Edyt, that's just Catholics. 33% are Christians. (Of course, if you took the Catholics out of the equation, since a lot of fundamentalist Christians don't believe Catholics are "real" Christians, then Islam would come out ahead.)

Posted by: Jen R at April 11, 2008 9:31 PM


JLM:

Your posts are wonderful as well and I am the one who is humbled at your grasp of scripture.

A true Christian warrior.

Posted by: HisMan at April 11, 2008 9:33 PM


JLM, why do I have to become a Christian to understand the Bible's validity and who has the authority to interpret it correctly? Is this book magical and only sensical to Christians?

Edyt,

Pretty much, although I probably wouldn't have used the word "magical"...more like "spiritual". Knowledge of God can only come through the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit does not teach you, how can you understand God? Here's what the bible tells us:

1 Corinthians 2:10-14

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Posted by: JLM at April 11, 2008 9:47 PM


PIP -

No I made a statement about ID.

Then I made a statement about Evolution.

Then I made a statement about Faith.

Then I made a statment about Evolution and Faith. No Evolution and ID.

I left ID out at the end of my statements, bc ID has nothing to do with the Creation/Evolutional debate.

Posted by: Tara at April 11, 2008 9:52 PM


HisMan,
awww...thanks! I'm growing more & more every day...Praise the Lord for that!

Your posts actually inspired me to be open with His truth. I thank God for you!

Posted by: JLM at April 11, 2008 9:56 PM


Ray,

I don't claim to be a creationist, it's not important to me, personally, I just believe that God created our world. Your statement that "There is no physical evidence to support the notion of creationism, whatsoever. None.", is false is my opinion because supporting creationism and proving creationism are two different things. The bible supports creationism to those who believe in God.

Posted by: Janet at April 11, 2008 10:03 PM


JLM, I hate to say it, but that's like saying I have to join the KKK to understand the goals of white supremacists.

Posted by: Edyt at April 11, 2008 10:04 PM


Edyt:

The KKK is an evil group. Is that how you view Christians?

Posted by: Janet at April 11, 2008 10:10 PM


Edyt,
I understand where you're coming from. I didn't say it, though...God did. Honestly, though, if you do want to get to know Him, that's how. If not, well, if you're ever in town, you'll know where to find Him!

Posted by: JLM at April 11, 2008 10:11 PM


But I'm not asking about God. I'm asking about the correct interpretation of the Bible.

Is it all to be taken literally?
If not, what is? What isn't?

And: Who is the authority on what is or is not to be taken literally?

Posted by: Edyt at April 11, 2008 10:17 PM


Janet, I don't believe in "evil" as in the sense that something is inherently wicked or immoral, since I think morals are quite subjective.

But I get your meaning, and honestly, I have thought that at times, but I give people the benefit of a doubt before I go off casting them as bad people!

Posted by: Edyt at April 11, 2008 10:20 PM


"No I made a statement about ID.

Then I made a statement about Evolution.

Then I made a statement about Faith.

Then I made a statment about Evolution and Faith. No Evolution and ID.

I left ID out at the end of my statements, bc ID has nothing to do with the Creation/Evolutional debate."


Tara...if you haven't noticed what's going on right now in our school systems, ID has everything to do with creation/evolution debate. Because "ID" is what creationists call themselves, ever since creationism was ruled to be a violation of separation of church/state.
Accounting for myself ID refers to the movement. In the broad sense I do believe in an "intelligent designer" but I believe he used evolution to do it. The movement is specifically opposed to evolution, otherwise there would be no controversy because they would recognize their position as philosophical.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 11, 2008 10:26 PM


But I'm not asking about God. I'm asking about the correct interpretation of the Bible.

Edyt,

That's what I'm trying to tell you. The bible is the Word of God. It's authors were inspired by God to write the exact words God wanted them to write.

That's what the Holy Spirit will teach you. To the common man that doesn't have the Spirit of God guiding him, it's very confusing, and something that the human mind cannot comprehend on its own. This is why I posted the verses from 1 Corinthians. The Spirit teaches the spiritual things.

Posted by: JLM at April 11, 2008 10:26 PM


ID has everything to do with creation/evolution debate. Because "ID" is what creationists call themselves, ever since creationism was ruled to be a violation of separation of church/state.

PIP,
You're absolutely correct. It's the Christian's "politically correct" term we had to succumb to so we can teach "God created" without using the name "God".

I admit that I do not believe that we evolved from another being, because God told us that we are created in His image and likeness. It's totally a faith thing, and I am not ashamed to admit or believe that!

Posted by: JLM at April 11, 2008 10:34 PM


Anon:

My point is not that the world is here. My point is that there is such complexity, such wonder, such well, evidence of intelligent design, albeit, design that has been tainted by man's failure.

How can a scientist who believes in the law of entropy, i. e., that all matter tends towards a more disordered state, believe in evolution which is basically in direct opposition to that law?

And if evolution is automatic, why do living things die? Why isn't there a mutation for non-death. You'd think that after a few billion years that just a few cells, organisms, species, would have figured out how to, well, survive forever. Death makes no sense from an evolutionary skewed point of view absent of spiritual reasoning. If God put evolution into motion why did living things die before the Fall supposedley leaving a fossil record? If evolution is true then living things evolved (lived and died and reproduced and mutated and varied and survived, became extinct, etc., etc., etc.) before the Fall. So, evolution denies that there was even a Fall. The answer is God did not put life into motion using evolution as the protocol. He created, (intelligently designed) a perfect world which was in perfect balance and in complete harmony with His intent and will until, i.e., no death. Humans decided to go their own way, which is called the Fall and all of creation was affected by this event and death and decay entered into creation. So, there could be no evolution before the Fall, only after the Fall, this is absurd. Christians are you listening?

This is why I disagree with Christians that think evolution is the way God did the deed.

You can see what acknowledging evolution does right here on this site, a microcosm of the larger debate. If you start accepting evolution as fact then you start to question everything the Bible states. By accepting evolution, you can question the creation account, the Fall account, the Flood account, I mean then you can even question whether or not Christ came in the flesh which the Bible clearly and literally states is from the spirit of the anti-Christ. Don't you think promoters of evolution know this stuff? They are not stupid people, evil, yes, stupid, no. Their agenda is clear.

We should not be surprised. They want to take that which is good, i.e., God's word, and teach that it is evil, the very definitiop of blasphemy. This is monumentally blasphemous. And there is a conductor orchestrating this symphony of death playing all these saps like violins.

Let's make another thing very clear. The Bible has never said that the earth was the center of the Universe. There are no biblical "stories" claiming this. This terra-centric view of the heavens and earth was the teaching of men who like today, were more interested in maintaining their entrenched power than in searching the Scripture for truth. So, to present this as an analogous construct as a argument against creation is absurd. The Bible clearly and explicity states exactly how the universe, the earth, all living plants and animals and humans were created. Evolution is a direct assault on the Genesis account of God's Word and this false doctrine of evolution, and it is a doctrine, a doctrine of demons, will dissappear.

And, the Hebrew word for day is a literal 24 hours not a description for a generalized and arbitrary period of time.

How can I know this all for sure? Because you see, the Holy Spirit dwells in me and I have the mind of Christ. "The flower withers and the grass fades but the word of God endures forever."

Posted by: HisMan at April 11, 2008 10:38 PM


PIP,

Here's a beautiful commentary on Genesis 1:26-27, (we are created in the image of God) that sums up where I came from in my 10:34 post. Please read the whole thing so you can see where this "crazy bible-thumper" is coming from, ok???

Man created in the image of God.

Man was made last of all the creatures: this was both an honour and a favour to him. Yet man was made the same day that the beasts were; his body was made of the same earth with theirs; and while he is in the body, he inhabits the same earth with them. God forbid that by indulging the body, and the desires of it, we should make ourselves like the beasts that perish! Man was to be a creature different from all that had been hitherto made. Flesh and spirit, heaven and earth, must be put together in Him.

Man, when he was made, was to glorify the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Into that great name we are baptized, for to that great name we owe our being. It is the soul of man that especially bears God's image.

Man was made upright, Ec 7:29. His understanding saw Divine things clearly and truly; there were no errors or mistakes in his knowledge; his will consented at once, and in all things, to the will of God.

His affections were all regular, and he had no bad appetites or passions. His thoughts were easily brought and fixed to the best subjects. Thus holy, thus happy, were our first parents in having the image of God upon them. But how is this image of God upon man defaced! May the Lord renew it upon our souls by his grace!

http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=18&source=2&seq=i.1.1.6


Posted by: JLM at April 11, 2008 10:43 PM


JLM:

You are on your way to becoming a Christian giant. "No longer conform to this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."

There are 31 chapters in Proverbs, read a chapter a day every month for 12 months and God will give you wisdom that you could not imagine.

Besides, He promises that if we ask Him for wisdom, He will not hold anything back.

I'll bet anything you made that request of Him lately, no?

Posted by: HisMan at April 11, 2008 10:48 PM


Posted by: HisMan at April 11, 2008 10:38 PM....

AWESOME, AWESOME, AWESOME POST!!!!!!

Posted by: JLM at April 11, 2008 10:49 PM


I'll bet anything you made that request of Him lately, no?

LOL!!! You are so right!

You know, a few years back, I admired the way that many people knew the scriptures. I memorized alot of them along the way, but I didn't read the bible much. I went to church about 5 years ago, and heard an ex-prisoner's testimony on how he found God in prison. He mentioned several times in that testimony of how he was "on fire for God". His enthusiasm for God was absolutely astounding!!!! A few weeks later, I wanted what he did...to "be on fire for God". I asked God for that, and WOW! He sure did answer my prayers! While I was "on fire for Him" (and still am!), I also did pray for wisdom and understanding of His word. Since that time, the Word of God has been "lit up" every time I read it! I gain more understanding each time I read. I'm definitely growing in Him!!!!

Posted by: JLM at April 11, 2008 10:56 PM


JLM:

I don't know if you have ever read what I am going to post? To present this is absolutely consistent and appropo to this conversation, so here it is:

"Abortion is an affront to the creative nature of God, it negates God as Creator,

Abortion denies the power of God to right a wrong, it negates God as Redeemer,

Abortion makes that which is good, the birth of human life, into that which is evil, the death of human life, and then calls it good, the very definition of blasphemy,

Abortion negates the resurrection power of God as it takes flesh that is alive in it's earthly abode (the womb) and kills it, while God takes that flesh which is dead in it's earthly abode (the grave) and desires to make it alive,

Abortion's desire is to take that which was composed from the chaotic array of elemental molecules into a symphony of life infused with an eternal soul, and turn it back to the entropy of randomness, chaos, nothingness, uselessness.

Abortion is against all that is hopeful, all that requires faith for success; for it's solution; annihilation, it's goal; death, it's dream; breaking God's heart, it's vision, Satan's ultimate power.

Abortion is a counterfeit, for the clawprints of Satan are everywhere to be found in its performance;

Abortion disguises hate as love, bondage as freedom, choice as maturity, sin as righteousness, political correctness as wisdom,

Abortion pits men against women, mothers against their children, fathers against God, Yes, abortion is Satan's feeble attempt at killing God Himself, for abortion is a metaphor for Satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him......for he laughs at its willing proponents as they craft their own self-destruction, mantled in self-deception.

Copyright 2007, 2008 by HisMan"

Posted by: HisMan at April 11, 2008 11:01 PM


Well... thanks for "answering" my questions, boys. I'm done.

Posted by: Edyt at April 11, 2008 11:02 PM


JLM: You are on your way to becoming a Christian giant. "No longer conform to this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."

There are 31 chapters in Proverbs, read a chapter a day every month for 12 months and God will give you wisdom that you could not imagine.

Besides, He promises that if we ask Him for wisdom, He will not hold anything back.

I'll bet anything you made that request of Him lately, no?

Posted by: HisMan at April 11, 2008 10:48 PM

HisMan, Be careful with the praise please! JLM already knows she's a "whiz" at scripture, we wouldn't want it to go to her head! :D (Just kidding, JLM)

Posted by: Janet at April 11, 2008 11:03 PM


HisMan,

When Heather asked you to post that when I first started "coming around here", and you did...it's when I first "fell in love" with your posts. AMAZING words from a truly AMAZING man who is in love with the AMAZING King of Kings & Lord of Lords!!!!

Posted by: JLM at April 11, 2008 11:05 PM


JLM,

I see where you are coming from and if you accept that God guided evolution to create man, and created a soul for us that bears Gods image, then there should be nothing contradictory between the two.

God "created them on the same day." I.e. God had man evolve and therefore have the mark all the animals do, but because he has given humans an immortal soul, one that connects him with God like no other creature can, humans are fundamentally spiritually different from the other animals.

This is where I am coming from.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 11, 2008 11:06 PM


Janet,
LOL!

btw..I keep getting caught up in conversations, but I want to let you know that I LOVED this part of your post:

"There is no physical evidence to support the notion of creationism, whatsoever. None.", is false is my opinion because supporting creationism and proving creationism are two different things. The bible supports creationism to those who believe in God.

That was AWESOME!!!!

Posted by: JLM at April 11, 2008 11:11 PM


Pro-life God:

"And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." (II Kings 2:23-24)

"O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalm 137:8-9)

"And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death." (Exodus 21:15)

"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:17)

(Above two also in Leviticus 20:9)

Deuteronomy:

21:18: If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19:Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20: And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21: And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear

"Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." (Proverbs 22:15)

"If any man take a wife, and go in unto her . . . and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid . . . and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die . . ." (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

"Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up." (2 King 15:16)

Similar:
"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)

From Numbers:

5:20: But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
5:21: Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
5:22: And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
5:23: And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:
5:24: And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
5:25: Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:
5:26: And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.
5:27: And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
5:28: And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
5:29: This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;
5:30: Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.
5:31: Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.

Sounds like an abortion to me.

Posted by: Edyt at April 11, 2008 11:11 PM


JLM:

Every Thursday, I go to an AIM (Atletes International Ministry) luncheon. World clss Christian athletes from all over the world and others come and give their testimonies. Next week my oldest son will be the speaker.

Yesterday, a guy came who was a hitman/assassin for the Mafia. His testimony was out of this world, telling how, before he became a believer, God rescued him from death.

The frosting on the cake was how he and a guy that had searched for him for three years for the sole purpose of killing him, but had become a believer, reconciled.

Only God can do that.

Posted by: HisMan at April 11, 2008 11:11 PM


PIP,
Thanks for explaining! It's great to see our differences and be able to explain them!

I just believe that "God said", and it was. It was instantaneous, like "let there be light". Bam! Instantaneous Light!!! Power in Him and His words. No evolution...instantaneous!

Posted by: JLM at April 11, 2008 11:15 PM


HisMan,
AMEN!!!! You must be so proud of your son!!! Please let me know how it goes!

I LOVE hearing testimonies from those who really hit bottom and found God. I became a Christian at a young age, so it's something that I've just always pretty much known. I almost envy those that came to know Him at a later age. The feeling of His grace and mercy must be on such a greater level for them than what I know!!!

How is Sean and your family doing??

Posted by: JLM at April 11, 2008 11:20 PM


Aw, man...not the evolutionary debate AGAIN.

I swear...it's things like this thread and the homosexual one that make me annoyed and want to stay away.

Science.can.not.measure.spirituality.

Can science measure love? No..why? Because love is not something tangible to be measured by science. Now one can observe physical expressions of love but LOVE itself can not be measured by science.

JUST LIKE RELIGION. Science can not measure whether God exists or not. That is in the hearts and the minds of people who believe he does. Science will never be able to tell you that, just like it will never be able to tell you how much you love someone.

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 11, 2008 11:24 PM


Edyt:

Yes, the penalty for sin, unbelief and disobedience under the Law was terrible. I'm glad you're just now realizing that.

Thank God Jesus Christ came to free us from the bondage and curses of sin.

Just think, now that we have a way out from the penalty of sin, how much worse it will be for those who reject the offer of mercy.

"The wages of sin is death, BUT, the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord".

Careful Edyt that you don't blaspheme God, i.e. question His stance on life by quoting verses out of context. This is extremely dangerous and disrepectful.

Posted by: HisMan at April 11, 2008 11:24 PM


Can science measure love? No..why? Because love is not something tangible to be measured by science. Now one can observe physical expressions of love but LOVE itself can not be measured by science.

Actually, there are many scientific ways of measuring love. Time magazine dedicated a whole section to the science of love.

HisMan, how about another attempt to answer the question of which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally?

Posted by: Edyt at April 11, 2008 11:33 PM


Actually, there are many scientific ways of measuring love. Time magazine dedicated a whole section to the science of love.


What exactly about love were they measuring?

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 11, 2008 11:37 PM


Elizabeth:

There are many social scientists that I think would disagree with you.

What type of love are you talking about? Fileo, eros, or agape?

I think the Alfred Kinsey in the 1948 Kinsey Report was a perverted scientist's attempt at classifying eros. No? A lot of people up to this day believe that crap like they believe evolution. In fact, I think that "scientific" study birthed the current sexual perversion we find today and was foundational to the legalization of abortion.

Here's a quote about the guy: "He is a man who recruited, wooed and solicited pedophiles, not pedophiles in prison but pedophiles out of prison to find children and to sexually torture them." Judith Reisman, Ph.D. and author of Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences.

And excuse me, the evidence of God's existence is everywhere to be found in His creation.

Posted by: HisMan at April 11, 2008 11:39 PM


And excuse me, the evidence of God's existence is everywhere to be found in His creation.

Yeah, which can not be measured scientifically. Thank you for proving my point.

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 11, 2008 11:42 PM


Be fair, I started out just ranting about Mathis because he is a bonehead :P

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 11, 2008 11:44 PM


JLM,

yes after the fiasco with Bethany I'm going to try to be careful on how I word things ;)

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 11, 2008 11:50 PM


Edyt:

Take these literally:

Creation
Man's Fall
The First Murder
The Flood
Abraham and Isaac
Israel's Captivity
Moses' Birth
Israel's Deliverance
The Promised Land
The Story of King Saul
The Story of King David
The story of Solomon
A history of Israel's Kings
Israel's Demise
The Virgin Birth of Christ
Christ's Life
Christ's Death
Christ's Resurrection
The Church

Take these metaphorically:

Song of Solomon
Perhaps the Book of Hosea
Revelation is written in apochyphal language and very difficult to understnad. The point of this book is however, God and His children win.

By no means is this an exhasutive answer to your question, however, I think you get my drift.

Posted by: HisMan at April 11, 2008 11:51 PM


Elizabeth,
Forgive me, but you've said this statement many, many times before, and I must say that I'm quite confused as to what you are trying to say. You say: "Science.can.not.measure.spirituality."

Science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. It's its theoretical explanation, when it conflicts with God's word, is what I at least have a problem with. Not it's "measurement", but it's explanation...like it has God all figured out, when, especially with evolution, it dismisses Him in the first place.

Posted by: JLM at April 11, 2008 11:52 PM


JLM:11:11:

Thank you.. I was thinking of you when I said it! (below)

"There is no physical evidence to support the notion of creationism, whatsoever. None.", is false is my opinion because supporting creationism and proving creationism are two different things. The bible supports creationism to those who believe in God.

Posted by: Janet at April 11, 2008 11:55 PM


JLM,

I am glad we reached an understanding on this issue :) I understand that you interpret the bible differently and vice versa.

Please understand too that it is insulting that evolution, instead of being a scientific theory that may, according to you "be wrong," is often portrayed as the CAUSE of all of these social evils and the people who make this movie want misunderstandings about the nature of scientific methodology to be prevalent in our culture and school systems. That is what is so frustrating about the movie.

Saying we simply believe something different is one thing- that I don't have a problem with- but saying that my belief is somehow 'responsible' for atheism, abortion, and the holocaust is insulting and just a stupid assertion. In no way does the scientific theory itself imply anything of the sort.

Anyway, I hope we have come to an understanding, an now I have to go to bed! Night!

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 11, 2008 11:57 PM


Wow...

So I'm "evil" because I consider evolution a valid scientific theory?

Interesting.

Posted by: Rae at April 11, 2008 11:58 PM


...like it has God all figured out, when, especially with evolution, it dismisses Him in the first place.

It never even mentions God so why would you think that means science has "God all figured out?"

Science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Physical phenomena.

Can science measure your faith in God? Is there a scientific experiment that you can come up with that actually measures God's presence in your life or in others? THAT'S what I mean. Science never says God doesn't exist...you just take the lack of mention of God to mean that science says He doesn't, and that is your assumption...and you know what they say about those....

Here's a definition for you:

science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[1][2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word.

Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines:

-Natural sciences, which study natural phenomena (including biological life), and
-Social sciences, which study human behavior and societies.

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 12, 2008 12:00 AM


...(science) It never even mentions God...

Why not?

Posted by: JLM at April 12, 2008 12:06 AM


So I'm "evil" because I consider evolution a valid scientific theory?

Didn't you get the memo Rae?

Evolution somehow disproves God...

Only it doesn't.

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 12, 2008 12:06 AM


Why not?

Because there is no scientific way to explain His existence. The key word in this sentence is SCIENTIFIC.

Now, there are theological/religious ways to explain His existence. But in regards to science, no.

It's like math. Math doesn't mention God, does that mean they are somehow disproving his existence by not mentioning Him? No! It would make no sense to talk about God when you are trying to solve for x. So why does science have to include God in their discussions of SCIENCE?

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 12, 2008 12:12 AM


@Elizabeth: I didn't think so either.

Again, I'll restate my opinion on the matter: evolution is the "how" and God is the "why".

But in the end, it really doesn't matter...all that matters is that we're here today, not where we were at the dawn of time.

Posted by: Rae at April 12, 2008 12:17 AM


Evolution somehow disproves God

If it doesn't, why do evolutionists get so ticked off at Creationists???

why do they put the fish with legs with the word "darwin" on their cars?

Why does it say that we evolved from apes when God clearly said we didn't?

Why does it try to explain away Creation by saying that it just happened by accident and it threw itself together?

Posted by: JLM at April 12, 2008 12:23 AM


Elizabeth:

I think I understand what you are thinking but, let me lay what I think out really for my own benfit, OK?

Science is only one way of knowing, not the only way, agreed?

Do you love your children? (I'm sorry but I assume you have children so substitute anyone).

How do you KNOW you love them. Can science prove that you love them?

I guess, science can present a hypothesis as to what love is, i.e. propose a defintion of love and, based on observations of your relationships and behaviors, make a conclusion as to whether or not your behaviors meet the hypothetical defintion of love. They can do this thousands of times with lots of differene people and present a whole slew of statistics, based on a "preponderance of overwhelming evidence", that love can be defined, measured and quantified. This is similar to the development of the theory of evolution by the way.

In a way, how one constructs the hypothesis frames the conclusion.

If science cannot prove that you love someone, does that mean that you do or don't love them?

If science cannot prove God's existence, does that mean He doesn't exist, even circumstatially? Heck, people are sent to death row on overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

It's absurd to think that because science cannot prove God's existence that there are no other ways of knowing this for sure. In fact, if one thinks science is the only way to prove the existence of God, he elevates science to a place it has no right to occupy.

Posted by: HisMan at April 12, 2008 12:25 AM


If it doesn't, why do evolutionists get so ticked off at Creationists???

Probably for the same reason Creationists get ticked off by people who believe in Evolution. Because both of you refuse to see ANY other side but your own. AND that everything is a one-sided issue...which it is not.

why do they put the fish with legs with the word "darwin" on their cars?

Umm...cause they want to piss you off...which clearly works. It doesn't bother me, because I know that evolution doesn't disprove God in any way. But I am also a person of faith and am pretty logical. There are people who are not.

Why does it say that we evolved from apes when God clearly said we didn't?

Well, I suppose it depends on whether you take the Bible literally or not.

Why does it try to explain away Creation by saying that it just happened by accident and it threw itself together?

I have never heard of this happening...science doesn't say anything happened by accident and threw itself together.

I would imagine that people who try to do this have a hard time grasping on to something that isn't physical or factual.

I believe God is the creator of all Life..so let's say for a minute, hypothetically that you don't take the Bible literally. Evolution says that humans are descendents from other species correct? So what if God created those other species and gave them the ability to evolve so that humans could be created? At the very beginning of it all is God...so in essence, both ideas are correct. God IS the creator of all life and therefore, He created evolution. Does this make sense to you?

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 12, 2008 12:35 AM


HisMan, 12:25 a.m.

You stated it perfectly..and much more eloquently than I could at this late hour I might add. :)

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 12, 2008 12:37 AM


Rae:

You said: "Again, I'll restate my opinion on the matter: evolution is the "how" and God is the "why".

But in the end, it really doesn't matter...all that matters is that we're here today, not where we were at the dawn of time."

This is a poor assumption.

The Bible makes some outrageous and conditional claims that not believed could endanger one's eternal soul like: "Unless you believe that I am He, you will perish", "if you deny Me before men, I will deny you before my Father in heaven".

For example, a belief in evolution acknowleges chance as a piece of the evoltionary motor. Chance implies that there is no accountabilty. No accoutability implies that good and evil are arbitrary and there are no absolutes. This leads to the conclusion that sin does not exist. The belief that sin does not exist implies that there is no need for a Savior which results in the denial of Christ which leads to eternal damnation. Any doctrine, belief, theory, call it what you will that denies Christ is from the spirit of anti-Christ.

If you don't think I am right on this just go research the teachings of that English guy Dawkins.

Posted by: HisMan at April 12, 2008 12:38 AM


@HisMan: *yawn*

I don't think it is "chance". I thinkt it was planned...you know, theistic evolution.

Nor do I really care what Dawkins says, because in short, I really *don't* care about evolution or where we came from, it's irrelevant to the here and now. Sure, I accept evolution as valid, but I don't really get up in arms about it, and I don't need to have you thumping your bible at me as you berate me and call me "evil" and "stupid" because I don't agree with your view point.

Posted by: Rae at April 12, 2008 12:44 AM


Guys, love all of you, but rrally, I've been ignoring my wonderful wife.

Oh, some bad news on Sean. The neurologists found no brain activity in Sean. His wife Gina, my niece, and Sean's family decide to remove all life support thinking he would pass on. Well, he hasn't.

He is now in a vegetative state and will be put in a hospice. Seems like the Lord has decided in the matter, however, I know Sean has been prayed for by many, many people. Like I was telling my beautiful daughter tonite. Faith and love fills in a lot of the voids of things we can't understand.

1 Corinthians 13

The Excellence of Love

1If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

2If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

3And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,

5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,

6)does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;

7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

9For we know in part and we prophesy in part;

10but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

11When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

13But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Posted by: HisMan at April 12, 2008 12:52 AM


Rae:

Where did I call you evil and stupid?

Who in the world are you listening to?

Gotta go, have a nice weekend.

Posted by: HisMan at April 12, 2008 12:55 AM


@HisMan: You didn't say me specifically, but you did call those who accept evolution as a valid theory "foolish" and "evil".

I accept evolution as a valid theory.

Anyway, I am sorry to hear about your nephew-in-law, he and his family will be in my thoughts.

Have a lovely weekend (I'm sure the weather where you live has to be better than it is in Minnesota right now).

Posted by: Rae at April 12, 2008 12:58 AM


Oh, some bad news on Sean. The neurologists found no brain activity in Sean. His wife Gina, my niece, and Sean's family decide to remove all life support thinking he would pass on. Well, he hasn't.

He is now in a vegetative state and will be put in a hospice. Seems like the Lord has decided in the matter, however, I know Sean has been prayed for by many, many people. Like I was telling my beautiful daughter tonite. Faith and love fills in a lot of the voids of things we can't understand.


Oh, HisMan, this is so sad, and I am very sorry to hear this. I will certainly continue to pray for him and for all of you.

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 12, 2008 12:59 AM


Okay people...it is 1:00..and I am still up...I HAVE to go to bed. Talk with you all later!

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 12, 2008 1:01 AM


Rae:

I do not think you are evil at all.

Yes, the weather in Phoenix is awesome, however, in about a month I'll wish I was up there is Minn.

Hope to see ya this weekend here. Good Posting.

Posted by: HisMan at April 12, 2008 3:30 AM


PIP at April 11, 2008 10:26 PM

Yes, I understand what is happening in the schools, bc Evolutionists are intimidated and afraid. They use ID as a way to scare people into thinking that teachers are going to teach the Bible. That is not what happens. When I was in school, they taught us that there were many theories on the way the universe, plants, animals, and humans came about. It was balanced and allowed each of us to use our own reasoning skills to decided for ourselves.

This is no longer happening, which is why creationists and IDers tend to be on the same side. If you read and spoke with IDers many would tell you they are NOT creationists.

Again the majority of evolutionists are atheists. They do not allow for any other viewpoint. That is not science, that is hyjacking. Science is supposed embrace new ideas and ways of looking at things. While there needs to be emphirical approach to science, it is dangerous when one group of scientists will not allow any other opinion but their own.

Posted by: Tara at April 12, 2008 9:52 AM


" If you read and spoke with IDers many would tell you they are NOT creationists."
Of course they would say that. But it doesn't change the fact that they are trying to insert supernatural into science, where it doesn't belong.


"Again the majority of evolutionists are atheists."
That has nothign to do with the validity of the theory.


"Science is supposed embrace new ideas and ways of looking at things."
Yeah, but there's the thing: there has to be evidence.

"it is dangerous when one group of scientists will not allow any other opinion but their own."
Many scientists disagree on different aspects of the theory. And they are allowed...because there is independent evidence. "God did it" is not evidence.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 12, 2008 10:39 AM


Elizabeth,
So at what point, if the evolution theory is correct, did God look at the evolved ape and say, "now, this evolved ape is finally complete in my image and likeness, and I'll consider this human and put a soul into it. I'll name it Adam, take out one of his ribs and create a female mate for him?

Posted by: JLM at April 12, 2008 11:22 AM


JLM... Umm, perhaps that didn't happen.

I know you may not be open to any other ideas, but if you're curious about Biblical symbolism, I strongly recommend Daniel Quinn's books: Ishmael, My Ishmael, and The Story of B. You don't have to read them in any sort of order, though I read them in the above order and it seemed to make a lot of sense that way.

I don't remember which books have certain information (I've lent out these books several times and people keep stealing them so I have to buy new copies again... not that I mind, these books are great) but I remember reading about how the stories about Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel can be taken metaphorically to represent various aspects of our changing humanity.

For example, Cain and Abel represent the change from hunting (Abel) to agriculturalism (Cain). Agriculturalism requires ownership of land, while hunters do now... so the agriculturalist tribes took over the land and property of the hunter-tribes for their own expansion. It's supposed to represent the beginning of property ownership and expansionism (as well as war) in order to grow in strength.

It's really fascinating, and while you don't have to believe it, I suggest checking it out just to see some of the ways the Bible can be interpreted from the view of humanity's development, and not just specific people.

Posted by: Edyt at April 12, 2008 12:33 PM


I am not an atheist,and I am far from
being biblicly illiterate.I never said that
life is purely random.I am simply aware that
the bible is a creation of MAN,not god.
To follow its dictates literally is foolish.
If you want to believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old,that is your right.
But all evidence contradicts this.And I do not
want creationists trying to fob this on students
in our schools.Let them decide what they
believe.Again,there is absolutely no conflict
between a much,much older earth and belief
in god.
Jews,(I am a non-observant one),believe
that god judges us by our actions,not by what
religion we follow.He doesn't care whether we are Christians,Jews,Muslims,or whatever.
And I leave it to HIM to judge Gay people.
That's not for me or you to do.

Posted by: robert berger at April 12, 2008 12:50 PM


I am not an atheist,and I am far from
being biblicly illiterate.I never said that
life is purely random.I am simply aware that
the bible is a creation of MAN,not god.
To follow its dictates literally is foolish.
If you want to believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old,that is your right.
But all evidence contradicts this.And I do not
want creationists trying to fob this on students
in our schools.Let them decide what they
believe.Again,there is absolutely no conflict
between a much,much older earth and belief
in god.
Jews,(I am a non-observant one),believe
that god judges us by our actions,not by what
religion we follow.He doesn't care whether we are Christians,Jews,Muslims,or whatever.
And I leave it to HIM to judge Gay people.
It's not for me or you to do that.

Posted by: robert berger at April 12, 2008 12:51 PM


Robert Berger, which god do you believe in?

Posted by: Bethany at April 12, 2008 1:03 PM


Jill, let's see how many times Mathis lies in this interview alone:
"The interview lasted an hour, and reading comments to my column from Darwinian apologists,..."

There's a bit of political framing from you. We real biologists are aware of multiple non-Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms. That's why your terminology is dishonest and deceptive.

"Were Darwinian academics/scientists hoodwinked into being interviewed for the film?"

Yes, but your label again is dishonest and deceptive.

"Explained Mathis, "The film is really about the academic persecution. It gets into some areas of social Darwinism: When a society embraces a materialist philosophy, what then are the applications? We get into Nazism and eugenics."

This is a lie. The fact is that Hitler's position is far closer to yours, Mathis's, and your readers', because Hitler explicitly denied common descent in Mein Kampf. Common descent is the linchpin of Darwin's theory. Creationists, IDers, and Hitler all agree that evolution can occur within a species, which is what Hitler's eugenic program was all about.

"We are not saying in the film there is a direct line, that Darwinism leads to Nazism, but that it is a necessary condition."

Which is a lie, since Hitler (and Mathis) agree on common descent, but both disagree with Darwin.

"And so we get into the cell, beautiful animation of what goes on inside the cell,..."

Another lie. The animation has many misrepresentations.

"We get onto some questions. One of the big problems with Darwinism doesn't talk about how life comes from nonlife. Darwinism starts with the cell,..."

Another lie. Darwin wrote nothing about cells. Darwin wrote about organisms.

"Nor can it be addressed. "I can tell you anecdotally based on all the different universities and professors I have encountered, my personal belief is you've got thousands upon thousands of scientists and students who look at the evidence and see Darwinism greatly lacking, but they don't say a word because they will be expelled."

Another lie. All of us know about non-Darwinian mechanisms, and none of us have been expelled for investigating them.

"What comes first these days, Darwinism as a scientific theory to be analyzed or an ideology to be protected?"

This is another lie. We don't analyze scientific theories, we test them--something no ID proponent is willing to do with an ID hypothesis. The irony is that they lack faith!

"But how is it that mutations are supposed to build all information,..."

Another lie. Natural selection builds the information. It isn't random, so creationists like to lie and pretend that it is.

"... but our genetics show mutation destroys information?"

Another lie.

"There are levels of complexity; this is difficult stuff."

The truth, finally! How can we address difficult stuff in a movie instead of doing actual science?

"How can this absolute power be uncorrupted? Said Mathis, "Through academic freedom laws. This is a way we can return some level of freedom to science where, even if Intelligent Design isn't taught, at least it needs to be discussed as an idea that is there."

Another lie. Science isn't about discussions, it's about using hypotheses to make predictions and testing them rigorously. The ID movement refuses to take the second and third steps and instead puts its money into bamboozling the public with lies.

"ID apologists want Darwinism clearly defined and fully taught, with all of its weaknesses."

It already is. That's why educated people are well aware of non-Darwinian mechanisms.

Are evolution and ID compatible?

"But not us. We're just driven by the evidence.' That's bogus."

Mathis is lying. We are driven by the NEW evidence we produce from testing our own hypotheses.

"Their philosophy is impacting how they look at the evidence."

Our philosophy is driving us to produce NEW evidence. Moreover, our philosophy requires us to predict the new evidence before we go looking for it. This is science. ID does none of that.

"They are teaching atheism by default."

Another lie. Mathis knows that many scientists are devout Christians.

"There is no way to get around this question other than to say let's talk about both sides."

We only talk about sides that produce new evidence. That excludes the ID movement.

"Here's the evidence for design. Here are the weaknesses. Here is the evidence for Darwinism evolution. Here are its weaknesses. Now decide for yourself."

That's not how science works. It works by formulating hypotheses and testing the predictions of those hypotheses.

Posted by: John at April 12, 2008 4:24 PM


Woot! Go John!

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 12, 2008 5:10 PM


JLM wrote:
"I admit that I do not believe that we evolved from another being, because God told us that we are created in His image and likeness."

When did God tell you that the other beings were NOT created in His image as well?

"So at what point, if the evolution theory is correct, did God look at the evolved ape and say, "now, this evolved ape is finally complete in my image and likeness, and I'll consider this human and put a soul into it. I'll name it Adam, take out one of his ribs and create a female mate for him?"

Do you not recognize parables in the Bible? Didn't Jesus Christ teach using parables?

BTW, we are apes, and we're not any more or less evolved than any of our fellow apes.

Posted by: John at April 12, 2008 5:12 PM


BTW, we are apes, and we're not any more or less evolved than any of our fellow apes.

LOL!

Posted by: Bethany at April 12, 2008 6:18 PM


BTW, we are apes, and we're not any more or less evolved than any of our fellow apes.

ROFLMAO!!! I do hope you were kidding, here...if not, well, John, I'll have to diasagree with you on that one!!! We cannot be apes, because apes are much, much more intelligent than we are. Where are all the aborted apes? Apes don't murder their own children!

Posted by: JLM at April 12, 2008 8:02 PM


@Bethany: You gotta admit...that there is some evidence that we evolved from apes...look at some of the neanderthals in the NHL...lol.

Posted by: Rae at April 12, 2008 8:06 PM


JLM:We cannot be apes, because apes are much, much more intelligent than we are. Where are all the aborted apes? Apes don't murder their own children!

Good one! Maybe we humans are devolving!

Posted by: Janet at April 12, 2008 8:17 PM


JLM, actually, while apes do not have the medical resources to perform abortion, they have been observed to commit acts of infanticide.

Posted by: Edyt at April 12, 2008 8:38 PM


Edyt,

Abortion is not very complicated, really.

Infanticide, inside or outside of the womb?

Posted by: Janet at April 12, 2008 8:48 PM


Doesn't change the fact that you two were patting each other on the back over a misstatement.

Posted by: Edyt at April 12, 2008 8:57 PM


The Expelled producers are now also being accused of ripping off the people who made the animation of the cell that they used.

Posted by: Jen R at April 12, 2008 9:03 PM


Edyt: Doesn't change the fact that you two were patting each other on the back over a misstatement.

Who are you talking to and about what?

Posted by: Janet at April 12, 2008 9:46 PM


Janet: Are you toying with me?

JLM 8:02 p.m.
BTW, we are apes, and we're not any more or less evolved than any of our fellow apes.

ROFLMAO!!! I do hope you were kidding, here...if not, well, John, I'll have to diasagree with you on that one!!! We cannot be apes, because apes are much, much more intelligent than we are. Where are all the aborted apes? Apes don't murder their own children!

You, 8:17 p.m.

JLM:We cannot be apes, because apes are much, much more intelligent than we are. Where are all the aborted apes? Apes don't murder their own children!

Good one! Maybe we humans are devolving!

Me, 8:38 p.m.

JLM, actually, while apes do not have the medical resources to perform abortion, they have been observed to commit acts of infanticide.

Posted by: Edyt at April 12, 2008 9:53 PM


So at what point, if the evolution theory is correct, did God look at the evolved ape and say, "now, this evolved ape is finally complete in my image and likeness, and I'll consider this human and put a soul into it. I'll name it Adam, take out one of his ribs and create a female mate for him?

Oh God, here we go....JLM, do you see the problem YET with mixing religion and science? If you can not keep them separate, than you will always be confused. Separate them and look at them for what they are, which is TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ways of looking at the origins of man...and they won't conflict as much.

Evolution=SCIENCE.
Creationism/ID=RELIGION.

THESE 2 ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT SUBJECTS!

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 12, 2008 10:31 PM


JLM, actually, while apes do not have the medical resources to perform abortion, they have been observed to commit acts of infanticide.

Edyt,

Don't have the medical resources? I believe this is one of the reasons abortion was made legal, right? To end the activities of "non-medical resource" abortions. Pregnant women were using all types of methods to rid themselves of their "young" in their wombs, and being injured and dying from that, right?

Please provide a link where the MOTHER Apes are ripping their own young out their wombs. I can't seem to find any in-womb infancide going on here with apes...please help!!!!

Posted by: JLM at April 12, 2008 10:32 PM


Oh God, here we go....JLM, do you see the problem YET with mixing religion and science?

Honey, you really need to relax a bit. My argument isn't about "science", it's about the evolutionists theory that we evolved from apes. I do see the problem, which is why I never mixed the two to begin with. You see, evolutionists think we evolved from apes. MY ARGUMENT, using my faith and God's word, says we didn't. You can't mix EVOLUTION and CREATIONISM..they are like oil and water. Elizabeth, I don't knock science. I love Biology. I think bioligists who see God in every life form are extremely talented and gifted people. The one's that don't, the atheists, that push their nonsensical theories contrary to God's word and creations, are the one's that I have a problem with, and the one's that my argument is aimed at.

Posted by: JLM at April 12, 2008 10:41 PM


Elizabeth,
Here...maybe this will help you see what I feel more clearly...

Science that jives with God's word = GOOD!

Junk Science that deviates from God's word = BAD!

Posted by: JLM at April 12, 2008 10:46 PM


Honey, you really need to relax a bit.

First of all, don't call me honey. You don't know me well enough to do that.

You see, evolutionists think we evolved from apes. MY ARGUMENT, using my faith and God's word, says we didn't. You can't mix EVOLUTION and CREATIONISM..they are like oil and water.

Your argument, about the SCIENTIFIC theory of evolution, uses your faith in God and your religion. How is that NOT mixing science and religion? The whole reason you don't choose to acknowledge this scientific theory is based off of your religious ideology, so CLEARLY, you are mixing the two.

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 12, 2008 10:48 PM


Doesn't change the fact that you two were patting each other on the back over a misstatement.

Janet: Are you toying with me?

I don't know who's back I may have been patting about what. I reread the chronology of the posts and I was laughing at JLM's comment, not at you. I'm not sure what your mis-statement was. I didn't mean to offend you.
It's getting late, my brain is fried, so good nite!

Posted by: Janet at April 12, 2008 10:55 PM


First of all, don't call me honey. You don't know me well enough to do that.

I apologize. It wasn't a derogatory name. If I could read to you what I wrote, and you could hear the tone in my voice, I don't think you'd come back with a comment like that.

Your argument, about the SCIENTIFIC theory of evolution, uses your faith in God and your religion. How is that NOT mixing science and religion? The whole reason you don't choose to acknowledge this scientific theory is based off of your religious ideology, so CLEARLY, you are mixing the two.

Elizabeth, please! An atheist will base his/her beliefs off of religious ideology too, doesn't mean that they believe in God, and nor are they MIXING atheism and Christianty!!!

I'm not MIXING the two either! I belive one and not the other. I pay attention to one and not the other. You tell me why the theory of evolution is good, I tell you why it's bad. You tell my why you believe it, I tell you why I don't. You tell me we evolve from apes, I tell you we didn't. I'm not mixing the two, I'm SEPARATING the two! Evolution IS a religion, but one that is based not on the God that I know. Don't you get that????

Posted by: JLM at April 12, 2008 11:05 PM


Elizabeth & JLM:

I hope you don't mind my butting in, I think JLM's question was just hypothetical about God's intervention... because she is a creationist, she doesn't believe science is part of biblical creation (I think). For you, JLM, The account of creation is from the biblical story and to be taken literally, with only God's hand doing the creating, right? Please tell me if i am wrong.

Posted by: Janet at April 12, 2008 11:06 PM


Janet,
THANK YOU!!! Only it's not science as a whole, it's the junk science of evolution. I think evolution discredits the good that science has done for us throughout the ages, and has given it a bad name!

Posted by: JLM at April 12, 2008 11:11 PM


Good link about GOOD SCIENCE that jives with the bible! I've browsed through it a bit, and I think it's very well put together....

http://www.scienceinthebible.net/KNOWLEDGE_BIBLE/menue.htm

Posted by: JLM at April 12, 2008 11:14 PM


If I could read to you what I wrote, and you could hear the tone in my voice, I don't think you'd come back with a comment like that.

Eh, well it's the internet, and I had to put my dog I've had for half of my life to sleep today..so I'm in a b*tchy mood either way. If you didn't mean it to be rude, that's cool.

Elizabeth, please! An atheist will base his/her beliefs off of religious ideology too, doesn't mean that they believe in God, and nor are they MIXING atheism and Christianty!!!

Really...wtf? This doesn't even make sense. You think all people who support evolution as a valid SCIENTIFIC theory are atheists? Well, news flash, THEY'RE NOT! Like I have said before, EVOLUTION DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD! Evolution NEVER says there is no God. Certainly there are people out there who infer that from evolution but evolution ITSELF does not say this.

And you were talking about two RELIGONS. I am talking about SCIENCE and RELIGION. Again, 2 separate issues.

I'm not MIXING the two either! I belive one and not the other. I pay attention to one and not the other. You tell me why the theory of evolution is good, I tell you why it's bad. You tell my why you believe it, I tell you why I don't. You tell me we evolve from apes, I tell you we didn't. I'm not mixing the two, I'm SEPARATING the two! Evolution IS a religion, but one that is based not on the God that I know. Don't you get that????


Maybe you are not getting what I am trying to say. Why is it that you don't believe the other? Because of your religious beliefs, correct? So you ARE mixing your religious beliefs with scientific ones. The sheer fact that you refuse to see evolution as a valid scientific theory based on your religious beliefs is the mixture of the two. Get it?

Or do I need to say it again?

And evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory.

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 12, 2008 11:17 PM


Eh, well it's the internet, and I had to put my dog I've had for half of my life to sleep today..so I'm in a b*tchy mood either way. If you didn't mean it to be rude, that's cool.

Oh my goodness...I am so sorry for your loss. I'm sure he had a wonderful life with such caring and loving family members. I really wish that dogs would live longer than they do!

On that note, and from reading the rest of your post, I'm going to bow out of this conversation now. Again...I'm sorry for your loss and I'm also sorry that we can't see eye to eye.

Good night, Elizabeth.

Posted by: JLM at April 12, 2008 11:25 PM


Actually, it was a creationist who classified homo sapiens sapiens as apes.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 12:59 AM


PIP, can you please tell me the name of the creationist who labeled homo sapiens as apes? I find that really difficult to believe, as a true creationist would believe that humans were created in God's image, in one moment, from the dust of the earth, separately from the animals.


Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 8:13 AM


Just curious, but did those of you who dispute the fact that humans are apes take highschool biology? Do you remember your basic taxonomic ranks at all? You know, Kingdom, Phyla, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species??

Humans are a member of the Family Hominidae, or GREAT APE, which includes us, gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans. We didn't just evolve from a common ape-like ancestor; we ARE apes.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 13, 2008 10:42 AM


LOL!! Hieronymous, please don't say stuff like that while I'm drinking coffee. I'll have to buy a new keyboard.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 10:51 AM


Hieronymous, do you believe that all apes - gorillas, chimps, and organgutans, should have human rights?

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 11:07 AM


LOL, Bethany! I was going to ask the same thing, but couldn't get past my laughter and find the right wording to do so!!!

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 11:19 AM


I suppose it depends upon what you mean by human rights. The right to participate in a representative government? The right to own property? The right to vote? Probably not.

But what does any of that have to do with humans being apes? We took a different evolutionary path than the other members of our "family" and ended up in a different place.

Here is the human taxonomic classification, just to put it all in context:

Humans are a member of the kingdom Animalia, the phylum Chordata (subphylum Vertebrata), the class Mammalia, the order Primates, the family Hominidae, genus Homo, species Sapiens.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 13, 2008 11:22 AM


I suppose it depends upon what you mean by human rights. The right to participate in a representative government? The right to own property? The right to vote? Probably not.

But what does any of that have to do with humans being apes? We took a different evolutionary path than the other members of our "family" and ended up in a different place.

Here is the human taxonomic classification, just to put it all in context:

Humans are a member of the kingdom Animalia, the phylum Chordata (subphylum Vertebrata), the class Mammalia, the order Primates, the family Hominidae, genus Homo, species Sapiens.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 13, 2008 11:25 AM


"Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there."

--- David Coppedge
Speaking of Science, Creation Matters, May/June 2003

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 11:47 AM


"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds"

----Albert Einstein

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 11:56 AM


Bible believers in America and elsewhere
simply don't realize how full of mistakes,
inconsistencies,and fraudelent insertions it is.
These were made by many individuals over many
centuries.They do not know the original
Hebrew and Greek,and cannot read these languages.
For examples,the word "virgin" for the mother
of Jesus is a mistranslation of the original
Hebrew word"Almah",which simply means a young
woman.Thus the whole myth of the virgin birth
came about.And that is only one of countless
examples of human error in the history of
the Bible.Some fraudulent insertions are on
the part of powerful theologians and clergy-
men who had their own agendas.In some cases,
monks slaving over manuscripts made simple
errors from fatigue or carelessness.
Sorry folks.

Posted by: robert berger at April 13, 2008 11:58 AM


A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

(This was last publicly updated October 2007. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.)

Philip Skell Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Lyle H. Jensen Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish Academy of Sciences Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences
Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic K. Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India) Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia) Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine) Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel) Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK) Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University David W. Forslund Ph.D. Astrophysics, Princeton University Fellow of American Physical Society Robert W. Bass Ph.D. Mathematics (also: Rhodes Scholar; Post-Doc at Princeton) Johns Hopkins University John Hey Associate Clinical Prof. (also: Fellow, American Geriatrics Society) Dept. of Family Medicine, Univ. of Mississippi Daniel W. Heinze Ph.D. Geophysics (also: Post-Doc Fellow, Carnegie Inst. of Washington) Texas A&M University Richard Anderson Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy Duke University David Chapman* Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Giuseppe Sermonti Professor of Genetics, Ret. (Editor, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum) University of Perugia (Italy) Stanley Salthe Emeritus Professor Biological Sciences Brooklyn College of the City University of New York Donald Ewert Ph.D. Microbiology University of Georgia Bernard d'Abrera Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology British Museum (Natural History)
Mae-Wan Ho Ph.D. Biochemistry The University of Hong Kong Russell Carlson Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of Georgia Scott Minnich Professor, Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochemistry University of Idaho Jeffrey Schwartz Assoc. Res. Psychiatrist, Dept. of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences University of California, Los Angeles Alexander F. Pugach Ph.D. Astrophysics Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Ukraine) Ralph Seelke Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology University of Wisconsin, Superior Annika Parantainen Ph.D. Biology University of Turku (Finland) Fred Schroeder Ph.D. Marine Geology Columbia University David Snoke Associate Professor of Physics & Astronomy University of Pittsburgh Frank Tipler Prof. of Mathematical Physics Tulane University John A. Davison Emeritus Associate Professor of Biology University of Vermont James Tour Chao Professor of Chemistry Rice University Pablo Yepes Research Associate Professor of Physics & Astronomy Rice University David Bolender Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Cell Biology, Neurobiology & Anatomy Medical College of Wisconsin Leo Zacharski Professor of Medicine Dartmouth Medical School Michael Behe Professor of Biological Science Lehigh University Michael Atchison Professor of Biochemistry University of Pennsylvania, Vet School Thomas G. Guilliams Ph.D. Molecular Biology The Medical College of Wisconsin Arthur B. Robinson Professor of Chemistry Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine Joel Adams Professor of Computer Science Calvin College Abraham S. Feigenbaum Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry Rutgers University Kevin Farmer Adjunct Assistant Professor (Ph.D. Scientific Methodology) University of Oklahoma Neal Adrian Ph.D. Microbiology University of Oklahoma Ge Wang Professor of Radiology & Biomedical Engineering University of Iowa Moorad Alexanian Professor of Physics University of North Carolina, Wilmington Richard Spencer Professor (Ph.D. Stanford) University of California, Davis, Solid-State Circuits Research Laboratory Braxton Alfred Emeritus Professor, Anthropology University of British Columbia (Canada) R. Craig Henderson Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering Tennessee Tech University Wesley Allen Professor of Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia James Pierre Hauck Professor of Physics & Astronomy University of San Diego Mark Apkarian Ph.D. Exercise Physiology University of New Mexico Eshan Dias Ph.D. Chemical Engineering King’s College, Cambridge University (UK) Joseph Atkinson Ph.D. Organic Chemistry MIT Dennis Dean Rathman Staff Scientist MIT Lincoln Laboratory Richard Austin Assoc. Prof. & Chair, Biology & Natural Sciences Piedmont College Raymond C. Mjolsness Ph.D. Physics Princeton University John Baumgardner Ph.D. Geophysics & Space Physics University of California, Los Angeles Glenn R. Johnson Adjunct Professor of Medicine University of North Dakota School of Medicine George Bennett Associate Professor of Chemistry Millikin University Robert L. Waters Lecturer, College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology David Berlinski Ph.D. Philosophy Princeton University James Robert Dickens Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering Texas A&M University Phillip Bishop Professor of Kinesiology University of Alabama Jeffrey M. Jones Professor Emeritus in Medicine (Ph.D. Microbiology and M.D.) University of Wisconsin-Madison
Donald R. Mull Ph.D. Physiology University of Pittsburgh John Bloom Ph.D. Physics Cornell University William Dembski Ph.D. Mathematics University of Chicago Ben J. Stuart Ph.D. Chemical & Biochemical Engineering Rutgers University Raymond Bohlin Ph.D. Molecular & Cell Biology University of Texas, Dallas Christa R. Koval Ph.D. Chemistry University of Colorado at Boulder John Bordelon Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology David Richard Carta Ph.D. Bio-Engineering University of California, San Diego Lydia G. Thebeau Ph.D. Cell & Molecular Biology Saint Louis University David Bossard Ph. D. Mathematics Dartmouth College Robert W. Kelley Ph.D. Entomology Clemson University David Bourell Professor Mechanical Engineering University of Texas, Austin Carlos M. Murillo Professor of Medicine (Neurosurgery) Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) Walter Bradley Distinguished Professor of Engineering Baylor University Sami Palonen Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry University of Helsinki (Finland) John Brejda Ph.D. Agronomy University of Nebraska, Lincoln Bradley R. Johnson Ph.D. Materials Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Rudolf Brits Ph.D. Nuclear Chemistry University of Stellenbosch (South Africa) Gary Kastello Ph.D. Biology University of Wisonsin-Milwaukee Frederick Brooks Kenan Professor of Computer Science University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Omer Faruk Noyan Assistant Professor (Ph.D. Paleontology) Celal Bayar University (Turkey) Neil Broom Associate Professor, Chemical & Materials Engineering University of Auckland (New Zealand) Malcolm D. Chisholm Ph.D. Insect Ecology (M.A. Zoology, Oxford University) University of Bristol (UK) John Brown Research Meteorologist National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Joseph A. Kunicki Associate Professor of Mathematics The University of Findlay John Brumbaugh Emeritus Professor of Biological Sciences University of Nebraska, Lincoln Thomas M. Stackhouse Ph.D. Biochemistry University of California, Davis Nancy Bryson Associate Professor of Chemistry Mississippi University for Women Walter L. Starkey Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering The Ohio State University Donald Calbreath Professor, Department of Chemistry Whitworth College Pingnan Shi Ph.D. Electrical Engineering (Artificial Neural Networks) University of British Columbia (Canada) John B. Cannon Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Princeton University John L. Burba Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Baylor University Stephen J. Cheesman Ph.D. Geophysics University of Toronto Mike Forward Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (Chaos Theory) Imperial College, University of London (UK) Lowell D. White Industrial Hygiene Specialist (Ph.D. Epidemiology) University of New Mexico Brian Landrum Associate Professor of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering University of Alabama, Huntsville David Chambers Physicist Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Michael T. Goodrich Professor of Computer Science University of California, Irvine T. Timothy Chen Ph.D. Statistics University of Chicago Sarah M. Williams Ph.D. Environmental Engineering (emphasis in microbiology) Stanford University Donald Clark Ph.D. Physical Biochemistry Louisiana State University John Frederick Zino Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Shing-Yan Chiu Professor of Physiology University of Wisconsin, Madison Todd A. Anderson Ph.D. Computer Science University of Kentucky
John Cimbala Professor of Mechanical Engineering Pennsylvania State University Chris Swanson Tutor (Ph.D. Physics, University of Oregon) Gutenberg College Kieran Clements Assistant Professor, Natural Sciences Toccoa Falls College Jan Chatham Ph.D. Neurophysiology University of North Texas George A. Gates Emeritus Emeritus Professor of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery University of Washington John Cogdell Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering University of Texas, Austin David R. Beaucage Ph.D. Mathematics State University of New York at Stony Brook Leon Combs Professor & Chair, Chemistry & Biochemistry Kennesaw State University Laraba P. Kendig Ph.D. Materials Science & Engineering University of Michigan Nicholas Comninellis Associate Professor of Community and Family Medicine University of Missouri-Kansas City Stephen Crouse Professor of Kinesiology Texas A&M University Cham Dallas Professor, Pharmaceutics & Biomedical Science University of Georgia Charles N. Verheyden Professor of Surgery Texas A&M College of Medicine Melody Davis Ph.D. Chemistry Princeton University Thomas Deahl Ph.D. Radiation Biology The University of Iowa Robert DeHaan Ph.D. Human Development University of Chicago Gage Blackstone Doctor of Veterinary Medicine Texas A&M University Harold Delaney Professor of Psychology University of New Mexico Jonathan C. Boomgaarden Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering University of Wisconsin Keith Delaplane Professor of Entomology University of Georgia William Bordeaux Chair, Department of Natural & Mathematical Science Huntington College Michael Delp Professor of Physiology Texas A&M University Keith F. Conner Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Clemson University David DeWitt Associate Professor of Biology Liberty University Aaron J. Miller Ph.D. Physics Stanford University Gary Dilts Ph.D. Mathematical Physics University of Colorado Gerald Chubb Associate Professor of Aviation Ohio State University Robert DiSilvestro Ph.D. Biochemistry Texas A & M University Daniel Dix Associate Professor of Mathematics University of South Carolina Allison Dobson Assistant Professor, Chemistry Georgia Southern University David Prentice Professor, Department of Life Sciences Indiana State University Kenneth Dormer Ph.D. Biology & Physiology University of California, Los Angeles Ernest Prabhakar Ph.D. Experimental Particle Physics California Institute of Technology John Doughty Ph.D. Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering University of Arizona Jeanne Drisko Clinical Assistant Professor of Alternative Medicine University of Kansas, School of Medicine Robert Eckel Professor of Medicine, Physiology & Biophysics University of Colorado Health Sciences Center Seth Edwards Associate Professor of Geology University of Texas, El Paso Eduard F. Schmitter Ph.D. Astronomy University of Wisconsin Lee Eimers Professor of Physics & Mathematics Cedarville University Daniel Ely Professor, Biology University of Akron Pattle Pun Professor of Biology Wheaton College Thomas English Adjunct Professor of Physics & Engineering Palomar College Rosalind Picard Sc.D. Electrical Engineering & Computer Science MIT Danielle Dalafave Associate Professor of Physics The College of New Jersey Richard Erdlac Ph.D. Structural Geology University of Texas (Austin)
Michael C. Reynolds Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering University of Arkansas-Fort Smith Bruce Evans Ph.D. Neurobiology Emory University Gary Achtemeier Ph.D. Meteorology Florida State University William Everson Ph.D. Human Physiology Penn State College of Medicine Susan L.M. Huck Ph.D. Geology/Geography Clark University James Florence Associate Professor, Department of Public Health East Tennessee State University Douglas R. Buck Ph.D. Nutrition and Food Sciences Utah State University Fellow, American College of Nutrition Margaret Flowers Professor of Biology Wells College Étienne Windisch Ph.D. Engineering McGill University (Canada) Mark Foster Ph.D. Chemical Engineering University of Minnesota Suzanne Sawyer Vincent Ph.D. Physiology & Biophysics University of Washington Clarence Fouche Professor of Biology Virginia Intermont College Robert Blomgren Ph.D. Mathematics University of Minnesota Kenneth French Chairman, Division of Natural Science Blinn College Richard N. Taylor Professor of Information & Computer Science University of California, Irvine Marvin Fritzler Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of Calgary Medical School (Canada) Walter E. Lillo Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Purdue University Mark Fuller Ph.D. Microbiology University of California, Davis Daniel Galassini Doctor of Veterinary Medicine Kansas State University Stanley E. Zager Professor Emeritus, Chemical Engineering Youngstown State University Andrew Fong Ph.D. Chemistry Indiana University John Garth Ph.D. Physics University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana Glen O. Brindley Professor of Surgery, Director of Ophthalmology Scott & White Clinic, Texas A&M University H.S.C. Ann Gauger Ph.D. Zoology University of Washington Paul Brown Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies Trinity Western University (Canada) Mark Geil Ph.D. Biomedical Engineering Ohio State University Ibrahim Barsoum Ph.D. Microbiology The George Washington University Jim Gibson Ph.D. Biology Loma Linda University John W. Balliet Ph.D. Molecular & Cellular Biology University of Pennsylvania, Post-doctoral Fellowship, Harvard Medical School William Gilbert Emeritus Professor of Biology Simpson College Joe R. Eagleman Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics & Astronomy University of Kansas Warren Gilson Associate Professor, Dairy Science University of Georgia Raul Leguizamon Professor of Medicine (Pathology) Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) Steven Gollmer Ph.D. Atmospheric Science Purdue University Gene B. Chase Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science (Ph.D. Cornell) Messiah College Chris Grace Associate Professor of Psychology Biola University James A. Ellard, Sr. Ph.D. Chemistry University of Kentucky Richard Gunasekera Ph.D. Biochemical Genetics Baylor University Jennifer M. Cohen Ph.D. Mathematical Physics New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Russel Peak Senior Researcher, Engineering Information Systems Georgia Institute of Technology Graham Gutsche Emeritus Professor of Physics U.S. Naval Academy Dan Hale Professor of Animal Science Texas A&M University Robert L. Jones Associate Professor, Department of Ophthalmology University of California, Irvine
James Harbrecht Clinical Associate Professor, Division of Cardiology University of Kansas Medical Center George W. Benthien Ph.D. Mathematics Carnegie Mellon University James Harman Associate Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry Texas Tech University Frederick T. Zugibe Emeritus Adjunct Associate Professor of Pathology Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons William Harris Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry University of Minnesota Thomas H. Johnson Ph.D. Mathematics University of Maryland Paul Hausgen Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Gregory A. Snyder Ph.D. Geochemistry Colorado School of Mines Walter Hearn Ph.D. Biochemistry University of Illinois Howard Martin Whitcraft Ph.D. Mathematics University of St. Louis Nolan Hertel Professor, Nuclear & Radiological Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Joseph Francis Associate Professor of Biology Cedarville University Roland Hirsch Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry University of Michigan Todd Peterson Ph.D. Plant Physiology University of Rhode Island Charles Edward Norman Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Carleton University (Canada) Dewey Hodges Professor, Aerospace Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology James P. Russum Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Marko Horb Ph.D. Cell & Developmental Biology State University of New York Joe Watkins Military Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering United States Military Academy Barton Houseman Emeritus Professor of Chemistry Goucher College Mark Pritt Ph.D. Mathematics Yale University Edward Peltzer Ph.D. Oceanography University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute) Cornelius Hunter Ph.D. Biophysics University of Illinois Rodney Ice Principle Research Scientist, Nuclear & Radiological Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Malcolm W. MacArthur Ph.D. Molecular Biophysics University of London (UK) Rafe Payne Ph.D. Biology University of Nebraska Muzaffar Iqbal Ph.D. Chemistry University of Saskatchewan (Canada) Mark P. Bowman Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Pennsylvania State University David Ives Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry Ohio State University Amiel Jarstfer Associate Professor of Biology LeTourneau University Stephan J. G. Gift Professor of Electrical Engineering The University of the West Indies Tony Jelsma Ph.D. Biochemistry McMaster University (Canada) Fred Johnson Ph.D. Pathology Vanderbilt University Raleigh R. White, IV Professor of Surgery Texas A&M University, College of Medicine Jerry Johnson Ph.D. Pharmacology & Toxicology Purdue University Harold D. Cole Professor of Physiology Southwestern Oklahoma State University Yongsoon Park Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry Washington State University Richard Johnson Professor of Chemistry LeTourneau University David Hagen Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering University of Minnesota David Johnson Associate Professor of Pharmacology & Toxicology Duquesne University Jay Hollman Assistant Clinical Professor of Cardiology Louisiana State University Health Science Center Lawrence Johnston Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Idaho Albert J. Starshak Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Illinois Institute of Technology Robert Jones Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering University of Texas-Pan America
Scott T. Dreher Ph.D. Geology (Royal Society USA Research Fellow) University of Alaska, Fairbanks David Jones Professor of Biochemistry & Chair of Chemistry Grove City College Robert Kaita Ph.D. Nuclear Physics Rutgers University Kenneth Demarest Professor of Electrical Engineering University of Kansas Edwin Karlow Chair, Department of Physics LaSierra University Francis M. Donahue Professor Emeritus, Chemical Engineering The University of Michigan James Keener Professor of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering University of Utah Shawn Wright Ph.D. Crop Science North Carolina State University Douglas Keil Ph.D. Plasma Physics University of Wisconsin, Madison Dave Finnegan Staff Member (Ph.D. Chemistry, University of Maryland) Los Alamos National Laboratory Micheal Kelleher Ph.D. Biophysical Chemistry University of Ibadan (Nigeria) Christine B. Beaucage Ph.D. Mathematics State University of New York at Stony Brook Rebecca Keller Research Professor, Department of Chemistry University of New Mexico Gerald E. Hoyer Retired Forrest Scientist (Ph.D. Silviculture, University of Washington) Washington State Department of Natural Resources Michael Kent Ph.D. Materials Science University of Minnesota Richard Kinch Ph.D. Computer Science Cornell University Irfan Yilmaz Professor of Biology (Ph.D. Systematic Zoology) Dokuz Eylul University (Turkey) Bretta King Assistant Professor of Chemistry Spelman College Mauricio Alcocer Director of Graduate Studies (Ph.D. Plant Science, University of Idaho) Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) R. Barry King Prof. of Environmental Safety & Health Albuquerque Technical Vocational Institute Hiroshi Ishii M.D., Ph.D. Behavioral Neurology Tohoku University (Japan) Michael Kinnaird Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Lasse Uotila M.D., Ph.D. Medicinal Biochemistry University of Helsinki (Finland) Donald Kobe Professor of Physics University of North Texas, Denton Martin Emery Ph.D. Chemistry University of Southampton (UK) Charles Koons Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Minnesota Miguel A. Rodriguez Undergraduate Lab. Coordinator for Biochemistry University of Ottawa (Canada) Carl Koval Full Professor, Chemistry & Biochemistry University of Colorado, Boulder Magda Narciso Leite Professor, College of Pharmacy & Biochemistry Universidade Federal de Juiz de For a (Brazil) Bruce Krogh Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering Carnegie Mellon University Tetsuichi Takagi Senior Research Scientist Geological Survey of Japan Daniel Kuebler Ph.D. Molecular & Cellular Biology University of California, Berkeley William Notz Professor of Statistics Ohio State University Wesley Nyborg Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Vermont Peter William Holyland Ph.D. Geology University of Queensland (Australia) Paul Kuld Associate Professor, Biological Science Biola University Heather Kuruvilla Ph.D. Biological Sciences State University of New York, Buffalo Nancy L. Swanson Ph.D. Physics Florida State University Martin LaBar Ph. D. Genetics & Zoology University of Wisconsin, Madison William B. Hart Assistant Professor of Mathematics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Teresa Larranaga Ph.D. Pharmacology University of New Mexico Yuri Zharikov Post-Doctoral Research Fellow (Ph.D. Zoology) Simon Fraser University (Canada) Ronald Larson Professor and Chair of Chemical Engineering University of Michigan Wolfgang Hutter Ph.D. Chemistry University of Ulm (Germany) Robert Lattimer Ph.D. Chemistry University of Kansas, Lawrence
Robert J. Graham Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Iowa State University M. Harold Laughlin Professor & Chair, Department of Biomedical Sciences University of Missouri Samuel C. Winchester Klopman Distinguished Professor Emeritus (Ph.D. Princeton) North Carolina State University George Lebo Associate Professor of Astronomy University of Florida Kurt J. Henle Professor Emeritus (Ph.D. Biophysics, University of Pennsylvania) University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences J.B. Lee Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering University of Texas, Dallas James O. Dritt Ph.D. Civil Engineering & Environmental Science University of Oklahoma Matti Leisola Professor, Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering Helsinki University of Technology Manuel Garcia Ulloa Gomez Director of Marine Sciences Laboratory Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) E. Lennard Sc. D. Surgical Infections & Immunology University of Cincinnati Glen E. Deal Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Florida Institute of Technology Lane Lester Ph.D. Genetics Purdue University Paul Whitehead Ph.D. Chemical Thermodynamics University of Natal (South Africa) Catherine Lewis Ph.D. Geophysics Colorado School of Mines John R. Goltz Ph.D. Electrical Engineering University of Arizona Peter Line Ph.D. Neuroscience Swinburne University of Technology (Australia) Gerald P. Bodey Emeritus Professor of Medicine, Former Chairman Department of Medical Specialties, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Garrick Little Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Texas A & M University John Nichols Ph.D. Mathematics University of Tennessee Mark Bearden Ph.D. Electrical & Computer Engineering Carnegie Mellon University Harry Lubansky Ph.D. Biological Chemistry University of Illinois, Chicago Daniel L. Moran Ph.D. Molecular & Cellular Biology Ohio University Fulbright Scholar Ken Ludema Emeritus Professor of Mechanical Engineering University of Michigan Jed Macosko Ph.D. Chemistry University of California, Berkeley Nigel Surridge Ph.D. Electrochemistry & Photochemistry University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Christopher Macosko Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Princeton University David Keller Associate Professor of Chemistry University of New Mexico Allen Magnuson Ph. D. Theoretical & Applied Mechanics University of New Hampshire Amy Ward Ph.D. Mathematics Clemson University Donald Mahan Professor of Animal Nutrition Ohio State University Shane A. Kasten Post-Doctoral Fellow (Ph.D. Biochemistry, Kansas State University) Virginia Commonwealth University Robert Marks Professor, Signal & Image Processing University of Washington Jesus Ambriz Professor of Medicine Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) Julie Marshall Ph.D. Chemistry Texas Tech University Jay L. Wile Ph.D. Nuclear Chemistry University of Rochester David McClellan Assistant Professor of Family & Community Medicine Texas A&M University College of Medicine Evgeny Shirokov Faculty Lecturer (Nuclear and Particle Physics) Moscow State University (Russia) Andy McIntosh Full Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory University of Leeds (UK) Mark A. Robinson Ph.D. Environmental Science Lacrosse University Tom McMullen Ph.D. History & Philosophy of Science Indiana University Martin Poenie Associate Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology University of Texas, Austin Tony Mega Ph.D. Biochemistry Purdue University Carl Poppe Ph.D. Physics University of Wisconsin
James Menart Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering Wright State University Theodor Liss Ph.D. Chemistry MIT James Keesling Professor of Mathematics University of Florida Brian Miller Ph.D. Physics Duke University Christopher D. Beling Associate Professor of Physics The University of Hong Kong (China) Art Nitz Ph.D. Anatomy & Neurobiology University of Kentucky Thomas Milner Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering University of Texas, Austin David Ness Ph.D. Anthropology Temple University Forrest Mims Atmospheric Researcher Geronimo Creek Observatory S. W. Pelletier* Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Chemistry University of Georgia, Athens Paul Missel Ph.D. Physics MIT Dónal O'Mathúna Ph.D. Pharmacognosy Ohio State University Lennart Möller Professor, Center for Nutrition & Toxicology Karolinska Institute Victoriano Saenz Professor of Medicine Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) David Monson Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry Indiana University Hugh Nutley* Professor Emeritus of Physics & Engineering Seattle Pacific University Terry Morrison Ph.D. Chemistry Syracuse University Bijan Nemati Ph.D. High Energy Physics University of Washington William Russell Belding Ph.D. Mathematics University of Notre Dame Bridget Ingham Ph.D. Physics Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand) Paul Nesselroade Associate Professor of Experimental Psychology Asbury College Kevin L. Kendig Ph.D. Materials Science & Engineering University of Michigan Robert Newman Ph.D. Astrophysics Cornell University Angus Menuge Ph.D. Philosophy of Psychology University of Wisconsin-Madison Khawar Sohail Siddiqui Senior Research Associate (Protein Chemistry) University of New South Wales (Australia) Janet Parker Professor of Medical Physiology Texas A&M University, Health Science Center Scott Northrup Chair and Professor of Chemistry Tennessee Tech University John Omdahl* Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of New Mexico Fazale Rana Ph.D. Chemistry Ohio University Rebecca Orr Ph.D. Cell Biology University of Texas, Southwestern Cevat Babuna Professor Emeritus of Gynecology (Post-doc, University of Chicago) Istanbul University (Turkey) Lawrence Overzet Professor of Engineering & Computer Science University of Texas, Dallas J. Meredith Assistant Professor, Chemical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Siddarth Pandey Assistant Professor of Chemistry New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Gordon Mills Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry University of Texas, Medical Branch A. Clyde Hill Ph.D. Soil Chemistry Rutgers University Stephen Meyer Ph.D. Philosophy of Science Cambridge University William Purcell Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Princeton University Paul Randolph Ph.D. Mathematical Statistics University of Minnesota Christopher Morbey Astronomer (Ret.) Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, National Research Council of Canada David Reed Ph.D Entomology University of California, Riverside Charles D. Johnson Ph.D. Chemistry University of Minnesota J. Ishizaki Associate Professor of Neuropsychology (M.D., Ph.D. Medicine) Kobe Gakuin University (Japan) David Rogstad Ph.D. Physics California Institute of Technology
Arthur John Jones Ph.D. Zoology & Comparative Physiology Birmingham University (UK) Patricia Reiff Director, Rice Space Institute Rice University Oleh Havrysh Senior Research Assistant, Protein & Peptide Structure & Function Dept. Institute of Bioorganic Chemsitry & Petrochemistry Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine) Dan Reynolds Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Texas, Austin Andrew Steckley Ph.D. Civil Engineering University of Western Ontario (Canada) Terry Rickard Ph.D. Engineering Physics University of California, San Diego Mubashir Hanif Ph.D. Plant Biology University of Helsinki (Finland) Eliot Roberts Ph.D. Soil Chemistry Rutgers University Mario Beauregard Associate Researcher, Department of Psychology (Ph.D. Neuroscience) University of Montreal (Canada) Quinton Rogers Prof. of Physiological Chemistry, Dept. of Molecular Biosciences Univ. of California, Davis, School of Vet. Medicine Liang Hong Associate Professor, Dept. of Dental Public Health & Behavioral Science University of Missouri—Kansas City Daniel Romo Professor of Chemistry Texas A&M University David Sabatini Professor Civil Engineering & Environmental Science University of Oklahoma Richard Buggs DPhil Plant Ecology & Evolution Oxford University (UK) Theodore Saito Ph.D. Physics Pennsylvania State University Kay Roscoe Ph.D. High Energy Particle Physics University of Manchester (UK) Thomas Saleska Professor of Biology Concordia University James F. Drake Ph.D. Atmospheric Science University of California, Los Angeles Fernando Saravi Professor, Department of Morphology and Physiology Med. Sciences School, Univ. Nacional de Cuyo (Argentina) Harold Toups Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Louisiana State University Phillip Savage Professor of Chemical Engineering University of Michigan Seyyed Imran Husnain Ph.D. Bacterial Genetics University of Sheffield (UK) Dale Schaefer Professor, Materials Science & Engineering University of Cincinnati Russell C. Healey Ph.D. Electrical Engineering University of Cambridge (UK) Siegfried Scherer Professor of Microbial Ecology Technische Universität München Stuart C. Burgess Professor of Design & Nature, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Bristol University (UK) Norman Schmidt Professor of Chemistry Georgia Southern University Steve Maxwell Associate Professor of Molecular and Cellular Medicine Texas A&M University, H.S.C. Andrew Schmitz Ph.D. Inorganic Chemistry University of Iowa Anne E. Vravick Ph.D. Environmental Toxicology University of Wisconsin, Madison Granville Sewell Professor of Mathematics University of Texas, El Paso Richard A. Strong Ph.D. Chemistry Northeastern University Marshall Adams Ph.D. Marine Sciences University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Stephen Sewell Assistant Professor of Family Medicine Texas A&M University Gregory Shearer Ph.D. Physiology University of California, Davis Douglas Nelson Rose Research Physicist United States Army David Shormann Ph.D. Limnology Texas A&M University Paul Lorenzini Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering Oregon State University Dale Spence Emeritus Professor of Kinesiology Rice University David W. Dykstra Ph.D. Computer Science University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Arnold Sikkema Associate Professor of Physics Dordt College Larry S. Helmick Senior Professor of Chemistry Cedarville University Georgia Purdom Ph.D. Molecular Genetics Ohio State University
John Silvius Ph.D. Plant Physiology West Virginia University Philip S. Taylor Research Fellow, Computer Science Queen’s University Belfast (UK) Fred Skiff Professor of Physics University of Iowa Giulio D. Guerra First Researcher of the Italian National Research Council (Chemistry) Istituto Materiali Compositi e Biomedici, CNR (Italy) Ken Smith Professor of Mathematics Central Michigan University Jacquelyn W. McClelland Professor (Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry) North Carolina State University, NCCE Robert Smith Professor of Chemistry University of Nebraska, Omaha Ian C. Fuller Senior Lecturer in Physical Geography Massey University (New Zealand) Wolfgang Smith Emeritus Professor of Mathematics Oregon State University Wayne L. Cook Ph.D. Inorganic Chemistry University of Kentucky John Stamper Research Physicist Naval Research Laboratory Jeffrey L. Vaughn Ph.D. Engineering University of California, Irvine Timothy Standish Ph.D. Environmental Biology George Mason University William Hankley Professor of Computer Science Kansas State University Walt Stangl Associate Professor of Mathematics Biola University John C. Walton Professor of Reactive Chemistry (Ph.D. & D.Sc.) University of St. Andrews (UK) Fellow Royal Society of Chemistry Fellow Royal Society of Edinburgh Karl Stephan Associate Professor, Dept. of Technology Texas State University, San Marcos Cahit Babuna Ph.D. Radiology Istanbul University (Turkey) Richard Sternberg Ph.D. Biology (Molecular Evolution) Florida International University Also: Ph.D. Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) Binghamton University Reid W. Castrodale P.E., Ph.D. Structural Engineering University of Texas, Austin Michael Strauss Associate Professor of Physics University of Oklahoma Jason David Ward Ph.D. Molecular Biology and Biochemistry Glasgow University (UK) Scott A. Renner Ph.D. Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign John Studenroth Ph.D. Plant Pathology Cornell University Peter M. Rowell D.Phil. Physics University of Oxford (UK) Mark Swanson Ph.D. Biochemistry University of Illinois João Jorge Ribeiro Soares Gonçalves de Araújo, Assistant Professor, Department of Mathematics Open University (Portugal) James Swanson Professor of Biological Sciences Old Dominion University Justin Holl Ph.D. Animal Science University of Nebraska, Lincoln Bela Szilagyi Ph.D. Physics University of Pittsburgh Richard Mann Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Princeton University Daniel Tedder Associate Professor, Chemical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Derek Linkens Senior Research Fellow and Emeritus Professor (Biomedical Eng.) University of Sheffield (UK) Charles Thaxton Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Iowa State University Lee M. Spetner Ph.D. Physics MIT Christopher L. Thomas Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry University of South Carolina Sture Blomberg Associate Professor of Anesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine The Sahlgren University Hospital (Sweden) Pavithran Thomas Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering Ohio State University Leonard Loose Ph.D. Botany University of Leeds (UK) Richard Thompson Ph.D. Computer Science University of Connecticut D. Albrey Arrington Ph.D. Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences Texas A&M University Stephen Lloyd Ph.D. Materials Science University of Cambridge (UK)
James R. Thompson Noah Harding Professor of Statistics Rice University Denis M. Boyle Ph.D. Medical Biochemistry University of Witwatersrand (South Africa) Ide Trotter Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Princeton University Kevin E. Spaulding Ph.D. Optical Engineering University of Rochester Royal Truman Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Michigan State University Robert VanderVennen Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Michigan State University Nigel E. Robinson Ph.D. Molecular Biology University of Nottingham (UK) Vincente Villa Emeritus Professor of Biology Southwestern University Margil Wadley Ph.D. Inorganic Chemistry Purdue University Clifton L. Kehr Ph.D. Chemistry University of Delaware Carston Wagner Associate Professor of Medicinal Chemistry University of Minnesota Karl Heinz Kienitz Professor, Department of Systems & Control Instituto Technologico de Aeronautica (Brazil) Linda Walkup Ph.D. Molecular Genetics University of New Mexico Medical School James Tumlin Associate Professor of Medicine Emory University David Van Dyke Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry University of Illinois, Urbana John Walkup Emeritus Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering Texas Tech University Pieder Beeli Ph.D. Physics University of Notre Dame Robert Waltzer Associate Professor of Biology Belhaven College James R. Brawer Professor of Anatomy & Cell Biology (Ph.D., Harvard) McGill University (Canada) Todd Watson Assistant Professor of Urban & Community Forestry Texas A & M University Weimin Gao Microbiologist Brookhaven National Laboratory Woody Weed Mechanical Engineer, Science & Technology Division Sandia National Labs Heikki Martikka Professor of Machine Design Lappeenranta University of Technology (Finland) Gerald Wegner Ph.D. Entomology Loyola University Richard R. Neptune Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Texas, Austin Jonathan Wells Ph.D. Molecular & Cell Biology University of California, Berkeley Alexandre S. Soares Ph.D. Mathematics Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) Robert Wentworth Ph.D. Toxicology University of Georgia Einar W. Palm Professor Emeritus, Department of Plant Pathology University of Missouri, Columbia R. P. Wharton Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Sandra Gade Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh Elden Whipple Affiliate Professor of Earth & Space Sciences University of Washington Chee K. Yap Professor of Computer Science (Ph.D., Yale University) Courant Institute, New York University Mark White Professor of Chemical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Charles Detwiler Ph.D. Genetics Cornell University Terrance Murphy Professor of Chemistry Weill Cornell Medical College Ed Neeland Professor of Chemistry Okanagan University Gregg Wilkerson Ph.D. Geologic Science University of Texas, El Paso Joseph M. Marra Director, Interventional Radiology, & Adjunct Professor of Medicine Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center Ken Pascoe Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Air Force Institute of Technology John H. Whitmore Associate Professor of Geology Cedarville University Ernest L. Brannon Professor Emeritus, Distinguished Research Professor (Ph.D. Fisheries) University of Idaho Christopher Williams Ph.D. Biochemistry Ohio State University Georg A. Speck Ph.D. Biology, Molecular Pharmacology University of Heidelberg (Germany) J. Mitch Wolff Professor of Mechanical Engineering Wright State University
Thomas D. Gillespie Research Professor Emeritus Transportation Research Institute, University of Michigan John Worraker Ph.D. Applied Mathematics University of Bristol (UK) Alexander Yankovsky Assistant Professor of Physical Oceanography Nova Southeastern University John C. Zink Former Assistant Professor of Engineering University of Oklahoma Patrick Young Ph.D. Chemistry Ohio University David Zartman Ph.D. Genetics & Animal Breeding Ohio State University Charles T. Rombough Ph.D. Engineering University of Texas Henry Zuill Emeritus Professor of Biology Union College Jane M. Orient Clinical Lecturer in Medicine University of Arizona College of Medicine Frank Young Ph.D. Computer Engineering Air Force Institute of Technology Murray E. Moore Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering Texas A&M University William J. Powers Ph.D. Physics University California, San Diego Max G. Walter Associate Professor of Radiology Oklahoma University Health Science Center Rosa María Muñoz Head of Biopharmacy Department Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) Scott R. Fulton Ph.D. Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Don Olson Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry Purdue University Graham Marshall Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry University of Pretoria (South Africa) Philip R. Page Ph.D. Theoretical Particle Physics University of Oxford (UK) Roger Wiens Ph.D. Physics University of Minnesota Mark Toleman Ph.D. Molecular Microbiology Bristol University (UK) Robert O. Kalbach Ph.D. Physical Chemistry University of South Florida Gregory J. Brewer Prof. of Neurology, Medical Microbiology, Immunology and Cell Biology Southern Illinois University School of Medicine Neil Huber Dr. rer. nat. (Ph.D. Anthropology) Tuebingen University Marc C. Daniels Assistant Professor of Biology William Carey College J.D. Moolenburgh Ph.D. Epidemiology University of Rotterdam (The Netherlands) Roger Lien Ph.D. Physiology North Carolina State University Dean Schulz Ph.D. Computer Science Colorado State University John Millam Ph.D. Computational Chemistry Rice University Joseph Lary Epidemiologist and Research Biologist (retired) Centers for Disease Control Richard S. Beale, Jr. Ph.D. Entomology University of California, Berkeley Ernest M. Thiessen Ph.D. Civil & Environmental Engineering Cornell University Tianyou Wang Research Scientist Center for Advanced Studies in Measurement & Assessment, University of Iowa Øyvind A. Voie Ph.D. Biology University of Oslo (Norway) David K. Shortess Professor of Biology (Retired) New Mexico Tech A.D. Harrison Emeritus Professor of Biology University of Waterloo William P. Shulaw Professor of Veterinary Preventive Medicine The Ohio State University Darrell R. Parnell Ph. D. University Level Science Education Kansas State University Daniel W. Barnette Ph. D. Aerospace Engineering Stanford University David William Jensen Professor of Biology Tomball College Edward M. Bohn Ph. D. Nuclear Engineering University of Illinois Robert G. Vos Ph.D. Civil/Structural Engineering Rice University Yvonne Boldt Ph. D. Microbiology University of Minnesota William B. Collier Ph. D. Physical Chemistry Oklahoma State University
Edward Gade Professor Emeritus of Mathematics University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh James E. Nymann Emeritus Professor of Mathematics University of Texas at El Paso Malcolm A. Cutchins Ph. D. Engineering Mechanics Virginia Tech Lisanne D’Andrea-Winslow Ph. D. Cell Biology & Biochemistry Rutgers University Holger Daugaard Ph. D. Agronomy Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences (Denmark) Shieu-Hong Lin Assistant Professor of Computer Science (Ph.D., Brown University) Biola University W. John Durfee Assistant Professor of Pharmacology Case Western Reserve University Dominic M. Halsmer Ph. D. Mechanical Engineering UCLA Charles B. Lowrey Ph.D. Chemistry University of Houston Jeffrey H. Harwell Ph. D. Chemical Engineering University of Texas, Austin Frank Cheng Associate Professor of Chemistry University of Idaho David Heddle Ph. D. Physics Carnegie Mellon University Yoshiyuki Amemiya Professor of Advanced Materials Science & Applied Physics The University of Tokyo Barbara S. Helmkamp Ph.D. Theoretical Physics Louisiana State University David C. Kem Professor of Medicine University of Oklahoma College of Medicine C. Thomas Luiskutty Ph.D. Physics Univ. of Louisville Wusi Maki Research Asst. Professor, Dept. of Microbiology, Mol. Biology, & Biochem. University of Idaho A. Cordell Perkes Ph.D. Science Education Ohio State University John D. Cook Head of Software Development (Ph.D. Mathematics, U.T. Austin) Department of Biostatistics & Applied Mathematics, U. of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Tony Prato Prof. of Ecological Economics University of Missouri Charles G. Sanny Prof. of Biochemistry Oklahoma State University Ctr. for Health Sciences Jairam Vanamala Postdoctoral Research Associate, Faculty of Nutrition Faculty of Nutrition, TAMU, College Station Gordon L. Wilson Ph.D. Environmental Science and Public Policy George Mason University Robin D. Zimmer Ph.D. Environmental Sciences Rutgers University Karl Duff Sc.D. Mechanical Engineering MIT David Jansson Sc.D. Instrumentation and Automatic Control MIT C. Steven Murphree Professor of Biology Belmont University Alfred G. Ratz Ph.D. Engineering Physics University of Toronto (Canada) Chris Cellucci Associate Professor of Physics Ursinus College Gary Maki Director, Ctr. for Advanced Microelectronics and Biomolecular Research University of Idaho Ronald S. Carson Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering University of Washington Joseph A. Strada Ph.D. Aeronautical Engineering Naval Postgraduate School Olaf Karthaus Associate Professor, Chemistry Chitose Institute of Science & Technology (Japan) Arnold Eugene Carden Professor Emeritus of Engineering Science & Mechanics University of Alabama John B. Marshall Professor of Medicine University of Missouri School of Medicine Robert B. Sheldon Ph.D. Physics University of Maryland, College Park B. K. Nelson Research Toxicologist (retired) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Hansik Yoon Ph.D. Fiber Science Seoul National University (South Korea) David Conover Ph.D. Health Physics Purdue University Luis Paulo Franco de Barros D.Sc. Mechanical Engineering Pontificia Universidade Católica (Brazil) Richard W. Pooley Professor of Surgery (retired) New York Medical College Arthur Chadwick Ph.D. Molecular Biology University of Miami Lennart Saari Adjunct Professor, Wildlife Biology University of Helsinki (Finland) Douglas G. Frank Ph.D. Surface Electrochemistry University of Cincinnati
James G. Tarrant Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Texas, Austin N. Ricky Byrn Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Mark S. Whorton Ph.D. Aerospace Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Jeffrey E. Lander Ph.D. Biomechanics University of Oregon Curtis Hawkins Asst. Clinical Professor of Dermatology Case Western Reserve Univ. School of Medicine Mary A. Brown DVM (Veterinary Medicine) Ohio State University Thomas H. Marshall Adjunct Professor, Food Agricultural and Biological Engineering Ohio State University Charles H. McGowen Assistant Professor of Medicine Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine Ronald R. Crawford Ed.D. Science Education Ball State University Matti Junnila DVM, Ph.D. Veterinary Pathology University of Helsinki (Finland) Dean Svoboda Ph.D. Electrical Engineering The Ohio State University Ruth C. Miles Professor of Chemistry Malone College Mark J. Lattery Associate Professor of Physics University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh William McVaugh Associate Professor of Biology Department of Natural Sciences, Malone College Jeffrey M. Goff Associate Professor of Chemistry Malone College Jarrod W. Carter Ph.D. Bioengineering University of Washington David B. Medved Ph.D. Physics University of Pennsylvania Theodore W. Geier Ph.D. Forrest Hydrology University of Minnesota Christian Heiss Post-Doctoral Associate Complex Carbohydrate Res. Ctr., Univ. of Georgia G. Bradley Schaefer Professor of Pediatrics University of Nebraska Medical Center Bruce Simat Associate Professor of Biology Northwestern College Teresa Gonske Assistant Professor of Mathematics Northwestern College Thomas Mundie Dean of the School of Science & Technology Georgia Gwinnett College Scott S. Kinnes Professor of Biology Azusa Pacific University James A. Huggins Chair, Dept. of Biology & Dir., Hammons Center for Scientific Studies Union University Jonathan A. Zderad Assistant Professor of Mathematics Northwestern College Michael R. Egnor Professor and Vice-Chairman, Dept. of Neurological Surgery State University of New York at Stony Brook I. Caroline Crocker Ph.D. Immunopharmacology University of Southampton (UK) Donald J. Hanrahan Ph.D. Electrical Engineering University of Maryland Gintautas Jazbutis Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Paul S. Darby Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Georgia Changhyuk An Ph.D. Physics University of Tennessee L. Kirt Martin Professor of Biology Lubbock Christian University Gerald Schroeder Ph.D. Earth Sciences & Nuclear Physics MIT Rod Rogers Ph.D. Agronomy/Plant Breeding Iowa State University David W. Herrin Research Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering University of Kentucky Glen Needham Associate Professor of Entomology The Ohio State University E. Byron Rogers Professor of Chemistry; Chair, Dept. of Mathematics & Physical Sciences Lubbock Christian University Vladimir L. Voeikov Vice-Chairman, Chair of Bio-organic Chemistry, Faculty of Biology Lomonosov Moscow State University (Russia) Ricardo Leon Dean of School of Medicine Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) Eugene C. Ashby Regents’ Professor and Distinguished Professor Emeritus Georgia Institute of Technology JoAnne Larsen Assistant Professor of Industrial Engineering University of South Florida, Lakeland Douglas Axe Director (Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology) Biologic Institute Joel Brind Professor of Biology Baruch College, City University of New York William F. Basener Associate Professor of Mathematics Rochester Institute of Technology
L. Whit Marks Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Central Oklahoma Perry Mason Professor of Mathematics and Physical Science Lubbock Christian University Timothy A. Mixon Assistant Professor of Medicine Texas A&M University Lawrence DeMejo Ph.D. Polymer Science and Engineering University of Massachusetts at Amherst Charles Garner Professor of Chemistry Baylor University Lynne Parker Associate Professor of Computer Science (Ph.D. MIT) Distributed Intelligence Lab, University of Tennessee Ivan M. Lang Ph.D. Physiology and Biophysics Temple University David J. Lawrence Ph.D. Physics Washington University, St. Louis John G. Hoey Ph.D. Molecular and Cellular Biology City University of New York Graduate School Theodore J. Siek Ph.D. Biochemistry Oregon State University John P. Rickert Ph.D. Mathematics Vanderbilt University Christian M. Loch Ph.D. Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics University of Virginia David W. Rusch Sr. Research Scientist, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics University of Colorado Charles A. Signorino Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Pennsylvania Luke Randall Ph.D. Molecular Microbiology University of London (UK) Jan Frederic Dudt Associate Professor of Biology Grove City College Glenn A. Marsch Associate Professor of Physics Grove City College Eduardo Sahagun Professor of Botany Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) Mark A. Chambers Ph.D. Virology University of Cambridge (UK) Daniel Howell Ph.D. Biochemistry Virginia Tech Joel D. Hubbard Associate Professor, Dept. of Lab. Science and Primary Care Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center C. Roger Longbotham Ph.D. Statistics Florida State University Hugh L. Henry Lecturer (Ph.D. Physics, University of Virginia) Northern Kentucky University Jonathan D. Eisenback Professor of Plant Pathology Dept. of Plant Pathology and Weed Science Virginia Tech Eduardo Arroyo Professor of Forensics (Ph.D. Biology) Complutense University (Spain) Peter Silley Ph.D. Microbial Biochemistry University of Newcastle upon Tyne E. Norbert Smith Ph.D. Zoology Texas Tech University Peter C. Iwen Professor of Pathology and Microbiology University of Nebraska Medical Center Paul Roschke A.P. and Florence Wiley Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering Texas A&M University Luman R. Wing Associate Professor of Biology Azusa Pacific University Edward F. Blick Ph.D. Engineering Science University of Oklahoma Wesley M. Taylor Former Chairman of the Division of Primate Medicine & Surgery New England Regional Primate Research Center, Harvard Medical School Don England Professor Emeritus of Chemistry Harding University Wayne Linn Professor Emeritus of Biology Southern Oregon University James Gundlach Associate Professor of Physics John A. Logan College Guillermo Gonzalez Associate Professor of Astronomy Iowa State University Tim Droubay Ph.D. Physics University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Gregory D. Bossart Director and Head of Pathology Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution Barry Homer Ph.D. Mathematics Southampton University (UK) Jiøí Vácha Professor Emeritus of Pathological Physiology Institute of Pathophysiology, Masaryk University (Czech Republic) Richard J. Neves Professor of Fisheries, Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences Virginia Tech David Deming Associate Professor of Geosciences University of Oklahoma Gregory A. Ator Associate Professor, Department of Otolaryngology University of Kansas Medical Center
Erkki Jokisalo Ph.D. Social Pharmacy University of Kuopio (Finland) John S. Roden Associate Professor of Biology Southern Oregon University Donald W. Russell Adjunct Assistant Clinical Professor University of North Carolina School of Medicine Neil Armitage Associate Professor of Civil Engineering University of Cape Town (South Africa ) Geoff Barnard Senior Research Scientist, Department of Veterinary Medicine University of Cambridge (UK) Richard Hassing Ph.D. Theoretical Physics Cornell University Olivia Torres Professor-Researcher (Human Genetics) Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) Donald A. Kangas Professor of Biology Truman State University Alvin Masarira Senior Lecturer for Structural Engineering and Mechanics University of Cape Town (South Africa) George A. Ekama Professor, Water Quality Engineering, Dept of Civil Engineering University of Cape Town (South Africa) Alistair Donald Ph.D. Environmental Science/Quaternary or Pleistocene Palynology University of Wales (UK) Thomas C. Majerus PharmD; FCCP University of Minnesota Ferenc Farkas Ph.D. Applied Chemical Sciences Technical University of Budapest (Hungary) Scott A. Chambers Affiliate Professor of Chemistry and Materials Science & Engineering University of Washington Cris Eberle Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering Purdue University Dennis M. Sullivan Professor of Biology and Bioethics Cedarville University Rodney M. Rutland Department Head & Associate Professor of Kinesiology Anderson University Alastair M. Noble Ph.D. Chemistry University of Glasgow (Scotland) Robert D. Orr Professor of Family Medicine University of Vermont College of Medicine Laverne Miller Clinical Associate Professor of Family Medicine Medical College of Ohio Laura Burke Former Associate Professor of Industrial Engineering Lehigh University Terry W. Spencer Former Chair, Department of Geology & Geophysics Texas A&M University Bert Massie Ph.D. Physics University of California, Los Angeles Mark C. Porter Ph.D. Chemical Engineering MIT S. Thomas Abraham Assistant Professor of Pharmacology & Toxicology Campbell University School of Pharmacy John L. Hoffer Professor of Engineering; Texas A&M University College of Engineering; (also) Professor of Anesthesiology Texas A&M Univ. Syst. Health Science Center Anita McElroy Ph.D. Biology University of California, San Diego Herman Branover Professor of Mechanical Engineering Ben-Gurion University (Israel) Martin Krause Research Scientist (Astronomy) University of Cambridge (UK) James G. Bentsen Ph.D. Chemistry M.I.T. Curtis Hrischuk Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Carleton University (Canada) Guang-Hong Chen Assistant Professor of Medical Physics & Radiology University of Wisconsin-Madison Doug Hufstedler Ph.D. Animal Nutrition Texas A&M University Justin Long Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Iowa State University James E. Rankin Ph.D. General Relativity Yeshiva University (Israel) Donald F. Smee Research Professor (Microbiology) Utah State University Colin R. Reeves Professor of Operational Research (Ph.D. Evolutionary Algorithms) Coventry University (UK)
*= Deceased since signing statement.

Note: Unless updated information has been received, positions listed are those held by signers when they signed the statement.

www.discovery.org

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 12:04 PM


WOW what a list, JLM!!

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 12:48 PM


So much for the "if you just understood science you would agree with evolution" argument...

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 12:49 PM


Elizabeth wrote:
"You see, evolutionists think we evolved from apes."

Elizabeth, "evolutionists" is a preposterous word coined by those whose goal is to deceive the public. We are apes, pure and simple, if you have the integrity to apply any of the classification rules ("kinds" in the Bible) that we apply to flowers, beetles, bacteria, etc.

JLM, how about some intelligent conversation instead of fallacious arguments from nonauthorities? Scientific controversies are decided by new evidence, and your side lacks sufficient faith to put any of their hypotheses to the test (which is how real scientists produce new evidence. Their actions (or in this case, inaction) speaks louder than words.

As for your laughable list, the vast majority has no relevant credentials in biology, and the NCSE has already mocked you by producing a much longer list limited to real scientists named "Steve."

Listing degrees just shows that your arguments have nothing to do with science. Scientific prestige depends on the quantity and significance of the evidence one produces. Are you aware, for example, that the world's foremost dinosaur paleontologist, who is a university Professor, has no PhD and is a college dropout? Consider this: I've produced more new evidence that constitutes a test of an ID hypothesis than the entire ID movement combined, despite the fact that I am not an evolutionary biologist. That's how dishonest this whole thing is.

Do you obey the Ninth Commandment, or is it expendable when you see a chance to advance your political views?

Posted by: John at April 13, 2008 12:54 PM


Are you aware, for example, that the world's foremost dinosaur paleontologist, who is a university Professor, has no PhD and is a college dropout?


I guess Bill Gates couldn't have possibly known anything about computers, due to the fact that he was a college dropout.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 1:00 PM


Amazing how evolutionists like John and Edyt think that unless you have been indoctrinated COMPLETELY into the college system and evolutionary theory, you cannot possibly think and study evidence for yourself and come to conclusions that are true.

Why not simply study for yourself and see where the evidence leads? Is this really so wrong?

So much for "free thinking". I can see that it's all about conformity.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 1:04 PM



Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 1:06 PM


Bethany,
You are so right!

John said,
"Listing degrees just shows that your arguments have nothing to do with science. Scientific prestige depends on the quantity and significance of the evidence one produces."

Now that's laughable!!! I guess since these scientists, you know, the one's with prestigous degrees, careers and education, aren't considered by John as "significant" unless they agree with Darwinism! I suppose John knows exactly what each and every one of these scientists have done in their lifetime careers!

Don't you just love "know-it-all's"!!!

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 1:12 PM


Yep, JLM, love em.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 2:05 PM


Posted by: Edyt at April 13, 2008 2:20 PM


Also, JLM, if you take a look at the PDF version in it's original format, you can more easily see how many of them have PH.D's. It looks like the majority of them!

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 2:20 PM


Edyt:

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 2:22 PM


"tit for tat"

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 2:29 PM


It's too bad that the Captain Zero cartoonist feels compelled to falsely state evolutionary theory, but if nothing else that can be laughed at, itself.

Posted by: Doug at April 13, 2008 2:42 PM


What is falsely stated Doug? Can you explain it to me.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 2:45 PM


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

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 2:53 PM


Bethany wrote:

"I guess Bill Gates couldn't have possibly known anything about computers, due to the fact that he was a college dropout."

Bethany, are you unable to read what I wrote? I'm pointing out that people in science are judged by their contributions of data, not their degrees. Bill Gates is an example of that, as is the case of Jack Horner that I mentioned. Talk about delusion...you assumed the polar opposite of what I was saying.

"Amazing how evolutionists like John and Edyt think that unless you have been indoctrinated COMPLETELY into the college system and evolutionary theory, you cannot possibly think and study evidence for yourself and come to conclusions that are true."

Where did I suggest that, Bethany? I will point out that the ID movement PRODUCES no evidence, which is the gold standards. As for you and JLM, you aren't looking at any evidence. Opinion is not evidence, and in science, arguments from authority are always fallacious.

"Why not simply study for yourself and see where the evidence leads? Is this really so wrong?"

Not at all! Why are you supporting JLM's fallacious argument from authority, then? Have you ever studied the sequence evidence for yourself, for example?

"So much for "free thinking". I can see that it's all about conformity."

It's about producing new data by having the faith to put your own hypotheses to the test.

"Now that's laughable!!! I guess since these scientists, you know, the one's with prestigous degrees, careers and education, aren't considered by John as "significant" unless they agree with Darwinism"

Where did I say that? Your misrepresentation of my position is a violation of the Ninth Commandment. Try and address my actual position. Their degrees, careers, and education aren't significant whether they agree with evolutionary theory or not. What's significant is that NO ONE on that list has produced a single datum relevant to your position.

Oh, and BTW, your use of "Darwinism" just demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. We real biologists know of many non-Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms, so your label constitutes another violation of the Ninth Commandment.

Your cartoon is a gross misrepresentation of evolutionary theory, so that's a third.

Now, please explain to me why having a PhD is more important than producing new data.

Posted by: John at April 13, 2008 2:55 PM


Bethany, are you unable to read what I wrote? I'm pointing out that people in science are judged by their contributions of data, not their degrees.

You do realize, don't you, that this is the very reason for the movie that is being discussed here. Scientists are being blacklisted for believing in something that isn't evolution. Their studies and their data are not being published, unfairly!

I can't wait to see this movie, JLM. How about you?

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 3:01 PM


John,
You're really into this whole "Ninth Commandment" thing. Are you Jewish, btw, and still "bound" to Old Testament law??? Do you read the bible?

On another note, I have a question for you. If humans take aprox. 20 years to see our "next generation", and evolution from the ape to us happened over many, many years...why then, if the fruit fly has been studied for many years, and they see their "next generation" every couple of weeks, why do we see mutations and variations in them but have not seen them develop into a "new" organisms? Why are they still fruitflies? Same thing with bacteria???

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 3:01 PM


Bethany wrote:
"You do realize, don't you, that this is the very reason for the movie that is being discussed here."

I'm asking why you couldn't understand what I wrote and misrepresented my position as the polar opposite of what it was--new data, not degrees, are the important thing.

"Scientists are being blacklisted for believing in something that isn't evolution."

That's a lie that the film has sold you. None of the people featured in the film were fired, much less blacklisted.

"Their studies and their data are not being published, unfairly!"

Bethany, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN JOURNAL. Look at the link on the left at iscid.org

Their journal never published any data, just apologetics.

Even more embarrassing, they haven't published an issue in over two years.

"You're really into this whole "Ninth Commandment" thing. Are you Jewish, btw, and still "bound" to Old Testament law???"

Why, no. I'm a Christian, and if you had bothered to read the Bible, Jesus Christ himself reaffirmed the Ninth Commandment, for example, in:
John 18:37
Ephesians 4:15

"Do you read the bible?"

Yes, and I've never heard of a Christian who actually claims not to be bound by the Ninth Commandment, although I've encountered many (like the makers of this film, a mountain of lies) who disregard it. That fits with your complete misrepresentation of what I wrote, of course, as well as your refusal to admit that you were wrong about my position.

So, have you looked at any evidence about evolution for yourself, or is your ignorant position based entirely on hearsay? What does the Bible say about using hearsay to judge, Bethany?

"On another note, I have a question for you. If humans take aprox. 20 years to see our "next generation", and evolution from the ape..."

"The" ape? You clearly don't understand what real scientists have learned. We are still apes. There are other apes. We share a common ancestor with each one of them; we are not descendants of any of the apes around today. If you can't even get the basics right, how can you, as a Christian, criticize people from such aggressive ignorance?

"... to us happened over many, many years...why then, if the fruit fly has been studied for many years, and they see their "next generation" every couple of weeks, why do we see mutations and variations in them but have not seen them develop into a "new" organisms?"

You are using a fallacy of equivocation, Bethany. Fruit flies are not a species. In fact, they are at least two separate families, many different genera, and hundreds of different species.

In fact, we have observed speciation in fruit flies both in the lab and in nature.

"Why are they still fruitflies?"

For the same reason that although we are in a different species from chimps, we are all still apes. "Fruit flies" constitute a much larger branch of the tree of life than do apes.

"Same thing with bacteria???"

We observe speciation of bacteria, too. Bacteria are a kingdom, a huge division of living organisms.

You clearly haven't looked at any evidence, and you don't understand the most basic terminology. Heck, you can't even be bothered to read what I actually write, or admit when you're wrong.

Posted by: John at April 13, 2008 3:26 PM


ROFL. This thread should be mounted under glass and stored in a museum for goofy creationist nonsense arguments and lies.

JLM and Bethany, I heartily recommend that you two hit Answers in Genesis for more material to regurgitate. It will be an awesome demonstration of how "smart" you are.

John, for you I recommend that you immediately stop bashing your head against the brick wall of what passes for thought here, and just laugh at it instead. It really is pretty funny.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 13, 2008 3:31 PM


Whoops, I made a mistake in my citation. Here's what I think is the best endorsement of the Ninth Commandment by Jesus Christ:

Matthew 5

33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

34But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

35Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

37But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Of course, right after that, he says that "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" from the OT is wrong!

Posted by: John at April 13, 2008 3:33 PM


Robert Berger:

You say you believe in God, who claims to be the author of life, but you diss this god's ability to effect a "virgin" birth? Let's see an impotent and weak god. Why would anyone want to believe in a god like that if for no other reason than to believe that one would have sway over such a god? Ever heard of idolatry?

Further, it appears that you endorse homosexuality, the complimetary sex act of which has never resulted in the conception of a human life, which I imagine if it did happen you would claim it to be a miracle.

Regarding your rather amateurish use of Biblical exegesis, the real tragedy revealed is that you appear to be willing to base your whole lifestyle on this pointless and gravely erroneous conclusion. A lifestyle that the Bible claims will end in your eternal destruction. Did you not know that assumption is the lowest form of knowledge?

Posted by: HisMan at April 13, 2008 3:38 PM


JLM:

Beware of false prophets.

You don't have to be a scientist to know that evolution is a crock.

And the Bill Gates analogy is laughable. I think Bill Gates has just a few PhDs on his payroll. Even Bill Gates is not that stupid.

Posted by: HisMan at April 13, 2008 4:05 PM


Bethany,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gFsKxvmZqk

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 4:05 PM


Edyt:

Your cartoon exactly.

The evolutionary theory developed a hypotesis to fit a prejudiced conclusion. Add a few biologists that desparately want to believe this stuff and poof, all the gigantic holes filled in, lies developed and extrapolations made, books written, facts established.

Then when other scientists have the moral courage to challenge such crap all hell breaks loose.

Excuse me Edyt, Gid is the conclusion. He invented the word.

Posted by: HisMan at April 13, 2008 4:11 PM


But HisMan, that means by your admission that creationism is not science. That is okay; I don't mind what you believe. But we just don't want you all to change the definition of science. Science follows the evidence to its natural conclusion. Creationism begins with the supernatural conclusion and accepts only the evidence that points to their conclusion. Because these systems of thought contradict each other they are not the same. So let's let Creationism be in the religion/philosophy department, and science in the science department, okay?

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 4:33 PM


PIP, thank you for the link. That was very interesting, and the speaker sounds very friendly.

However, I must counter the claim that the man was a creationist in the sense that you or I think or creationist.

It appears that Linnaeus believed that God created the earth, but I cannot find anywhere that he believed that the earth was formed in 6 days, from the dust of the earth, etc, per the Biblical account. He just believed that God was the one who brought it about. Therefore, he pretty much was on the same page as you, correct? (Since you believe God created the earth, but that He just had a different way of doing so).

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 4:35 PM


Correct me if I'm wrong though. I never read about him before.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 4:40 PM


Hisman 4:11 yes, exactly.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 4:41 PM


Hisman, I made the Bill Gates analogy because I misinterpreted John's point to be something it was not. Sorry about that!

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 4:42 PM



“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” Sir Arthur Keith. Criswell, W.A. (1972), Did Man Just Happen? p. 73, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 4:45 PM


You all believe in the theory of gravity, of course.

I was wondering what makes this any different than believing in God. What I mean is, if there is evidence that leads to God (who can't be seen) -- (and there is such evidence), why can't the scientific community allow itself to acknowledge this, just as they accept the idea of gravity (yet another force which can't be seen). This question may seem silly to you all, but to me, it seems that one unseen force should be good as another, in the scientific community.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 4:49 PM


Okay, I read and learned a little bit about Linneaus here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/classifying-life

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 5:00 PM


Beware of false prophets.

Amen to that, HisMan!!!

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 5:08 PM


Excellent link, Bethany!!!

Genesis records that God created the animals and plants according to their kind. Genesis explains that God created specific kinds of animals. These kinds were able to breed and reproduce more of the same kind with a great variety of traits. It is not absolutely clear what the boundaries of the original kinds were, but it is clear from Genesis that the different animals and plants did not evolve from one another. The creation of life on earth was certainly a miraculous event that man will never be able to fully understand—it must be accepted by faith. However, it requires just as much—if not more— faith to accept the evolutionary story of the beginning of life and the first cell from lifeless matter,/u>

Put THAT under glass, Hieronymous!

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 5:12 PM


JLM, evolution is one thing, a known process and phenomenon. That is not to say anything, necessarily, about the very beginning of life on Earth.

Posted by: Doug at April 13, 2008 5:20 PM


Bethany: What is falsely stated Doug? Can you explain it to me.

The cartoon does not reflect how natural selection works.

Posted by: Doug at April 13, 2008 5:21 PM


Bethany:

No apology was necessary.

That sarcastic Bill Gates comment was directed at John.

You're posting of all those PhD's is absolutely appropo because the only thing evolutionists repect is a title.

Hey, there's strength in numbers, right?

Wrong, you and God are a majority.

Posted by: HisMan at April 13, 2008 5:22 PM


Bethany,

Gravity can be measured. We measure the acceleration of an object due to gravity, etc. I don't know a lot about physics, but I do know that this among other observational constants allows for a lot of mathematical computations. Whereas, if God is an unpredictable force that doesn't act with any sort of consistency or measurable force, there is no way to, well, measure him.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 5:24 PM


See, Bethany, he WAS a creationist, and he still classified humans as apes!

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 5:28 PM


The cartoon does not reflect how natural selection works.

Well, that doesn't really answer my question, Doug. maybe you could explain to me where the errors were in the comic, so that I could be enlightened?

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 5:32 PM


Now I'm not coming down on either side of this argument, but I just want to point out that Linnaeus wasn't exactly "perfect"...He also put mythological creatures in the same category as human beings...

Linnaeus is regarded by some contemporary humanities scholars as "The Father of Scientific racism". The charge is that, through his works he bound observable differences in 'race' with uncorroborated discriminatory stereotypes that precisely elevated the European 'race' above the "darker" races. It also made divisions that were biologically and taxonomically unsound, leading (some speculate) to the institution of scientific racism, which persists today.[12]
*
Mankind
*
Linnaeus presented a concept of 'race' as applied to humans, also including mythological creatures. Within Homo sapiens he proposed five taxa of a lower (unnamed) rank. These categories were Africanus, Americanus, Asiaticus, Europeanus, and Monstrosus. They were based on place of origin at first, and later on skin colour.[13] Each race had certain characteristics that he considered endemic to individuals belonging to it. Native Americans were choleric, red, straightforward, eager and combative. Africans were phlegmatic, black, slow, relaxed and negligent. Asians were melancholic, yellow, inflexible, severe and avaricious. Europeans were sanguine and pale, muscular, swift, clever and inventive. The "monstrous" humans included such entities as the "agile and fainthearted" dwarf of the Alps, the Patagonian giant, and the monorchid Hottentot.[14]
*
In addition, in Amoenitates academicae (1763), he defined Homo anthropomorpha as a catch-all term for a variety of human-like mythological creatures, including the troglodyte, satyr, hydra, and phoenix. He claimed that these creatures not only actually existed but were in reality inaccurate descriptions of real-world ape-like creatures.

classifying us as primates is indeed what is done today...but consider the source.

And while we may belong to the "order" of primates, we are of the species human. Which of course is important.

Just because we are mammals does not mean that we are the same as dogs, rats or other mammals. We simply share breast feeding...

We walk upright. Sapient means wise. Obviously, Linneaus recognized "something" that separated us from our chimpanzee cousins... We are wise and walk upright. Gorillas walk upright, but I wouldn't call them "wise".

Posted by: mk at April 13, 2008 5:33 PM


But classification is based on physical traits alone, am I right? So we may have physical traits that are similar to apes, but this does not mean we are apes. If he was just saying that we are similar to them, and therefore put us in the category because of the fact that we have hands and feet, that we are able to give milk to our young, and we are warm blooded, etc, I have no disagreement. We have similarities, obviously. We also have similarities to many other types of animals. The fact that we are so similar doesn't prove to me that we have a common ancestor, but that we all have a common creator.

According to the Genesis link (my words in bold):

"Linnaeus developed a classification system that was based on physical characteristics. (not their ancestry) Linnaeus is credited with popularizing the use of hierarchies and binomial nomenclature—the two-name system used for names in science today. Linnaeus called man Homo diurnis (man of the day) and grouped him in the primate group based on physical traits. Today, humans are called Homo sapiens (wise man). Classifying humans based on physical traits alone does not reflect the biblical idea of being created in the image of God. While it is true that humans share the physical traits attributed to mammals, humans have a spirit that distinguishes them from animals. Despite the fact that we share many traits with the primates, humans are not simply highly evolved apes; we were specially created in the image of God.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 5:37 PM


Thank you for that information, Marykay. I don't know a lot about him and honestly, I would never go as far to expect any person to be perfect, even if they were a creationist. Creationists can absolutely make mistakes and be wrong about things.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 5:39 PM


JLM, evolution is one thing, a known process and phenomenon. That is not to say anything, necessarily, about the very beginning of life on Earth.

But Doug, don't evolutionists believe in all life having a common ancestor???

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 5:48 PM


Bethany, MK,

For obvious reasons, and the fact that Linnaeus was quite a long time ago, we don't use classification based on what Linnaeus has written. We use it based on phylogeny and DNA sequencing, this separates species from genus, etc, too.

My original point was that even creationists shouldn't have a problem with us being classified as apes.

btw, just because we are an ape (and mammal) does not mean that we don't have unique and separate characteristics, and darwin himself acknowledged that. So we are mammals, we are apes, but we do still have something that separates us (mainly being a conscious sense and a sense of conscience..)

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 5:49 PM


I was watching a show on the National Geographic channel the other day. It was about praying mantis's. They found some praying mantis's in amber, which they claimed was about 40 billion years old (I could be wrong about the exact number of billions!lol), but they said (I'm paraphrasing) ,'Amazingly, this praying mantis has been preserved, and is exactly the same as the ones existing today and has remained unevolved through time, completely unchanged '

Why is this really a surprise to these people, that the praying mantis's aren't changed?

The same is the case with some termite fossils which were preserved in amber. They were claimed to be 25 million years old, yet the termites were "identical to those living today".

This seems to happen all the time, yet scientists ignore the evidence, it seems. It's clear to me that these insects were clearly unevolved not because they are some kind of special species which didn't evolve, but because there is no such thing as evolution....

This is what I mean about looking at the same evidence, through different lenses.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 5:50 PM


My original point was that even creationists shouldn't have a problem with us being classified as apes.

I DO!!!!

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 5:53 PM


btw, just because we are an ape (and mammal) does not mean that we don't have unique and separate characteristics, and darwin himself acknowledged that. So we are mammals, we are apes, but we do still have something that separates us (mainly being a conscious sense and a sense of conscience..)

So do you believe that we still had that thing that separates us, and that consciousness and that sense when you believe we were reptiles or amphibians and all of the other forms you believe we evolved into before becoming the form we are today? Do you believe that we had a soul when you believe we were animalistic?

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 5:56 PM


Me too, JLM!

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 5:57 PM


but we do still have something that separates us (mainly being a conscious sense and a sense of conscience.

So, something "immeasurable" formed from nothing, right?

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 6:01 PM


but we do still have something that separates us (mainly being a conscious sense and a sense of conscience.

and, sounds just like being able to discern good from evil....starting to sound like being created in "Someone's" image and likeness, huh???

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 6:06 PM


"Just because we are mammals does not mean that we are the same as dogs, rats or other mammals. We simply share breast feeding..."

Uh...we also share live birth and placentas with mammals as well as well as being "hairy". :)


Posted by: Rae at April 13, 2008 6:09 PM


Bethany, what? I'm confused on what you are asking.

You are essentially denying that we are an animal. How can this be denied?
I have no problem that we are animals. However, because God endowed us with a soul, we also have fundamental differences from other animals. We have the thread of history in us but we also have a soul, the ultimate connection with God in us.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 6:18 PM


"and, sounds just like being able to discern good from evil....starting to sound like being created in "Someone's" image and likeness, huh???"

Yes, JLM, exactly.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 6:19 PM


PIP,
wshew!!! Cool!

okay then, back to one of my previous questions: So at some point in the evolution process, when we supposedly "crossed the line" from ape to ape created in God's image and likeness (i.e, "human"), God said, "Aha! Finished! Now I'll place that soul into them".?

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 6:26 PM


JLM,

we became truly human when God gave us a soul. We will probably never know when that happened, but in my opinion that is not very important anyway; the importance is that we have one.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 6:28 PM


we became truly human when God gave us a soul. We will probably never know when that happened, but in my opinion that is not very important anyway; the importance is that we have one.

I'm glad we have one, too!!!!

Why do some still considered us apes then?

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 6:33 PM


Because we are based on taxonomy and phylogeny we are classified as apes.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 6:42 PM


so we're animals???

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 6:43 PM


whoops, just, "because based on..."

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 6:44 PM


JLM,

yes, we are both animal and human. You agree that we have animal instincts but human expectations, right? Where do you think the animal instincts came from?

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 6:45 PM


Also, based on all the things we have that we share in common with nature, it would be silly to deny that we are a part of it.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 6:46 PM


But once we had our soul "inserted" in us, we would become totally human, and rely on human instinct, not animal instincts, right? Shouldn't the "insertion" of the soul put us in a newly defined class??? I mean, an animal doesn't plan on murdering it's enemy three weeks or months in advance. Animals don't kill out of hatred, they kill out of "territorial disputes" and "to eat". I think that what you refer to as "animal instincts" I refer to as "man's sinful nature". Animals don't sin.

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 6:51 PM


Also, based on all the things we have that we share in common with nature, it would be silly to deny that we are a part of it.

sorry...pet peeve of mine (nature, or mother nature)...All of God's creations have their Creator as their common denominator. If I were to make pottery for a living, you would easily be able to tell which one's were my creations. They would all be uniquely designed, but they would have my "stamp of authorship" on them. Picasso's paintings are easy to tell that they came from him. His "stamp of authorship" was unique his paintings as well.

We were all created by One Creator, and each of His creations are unique.

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 6:56 PM


JLM,

do you consider the urge to have sex at an early age, to cheat on a mate, to compete aggressively for mates, or to assert dominance (for example) to just be evils rather than an instinct we have in common with others?

Also again there are characteristics that we do and do not share with animals; part of this is due to our past ancestral heritage with other animals and part of it is due to the privilege of being close to God and knowing the difference between good and evil. I do not deny though that evil exists in the world due to the fact that men are fallen out of complete and total connection with God.

We are an entirely new species. But according to our classification system we are still apes; we are still animals, we are still a part of nature. Would you not call us a mammal, JLM? Would you not say that we are a part of nature? If so, how does our classification system seem so threatening to you?

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 6:58 PM


"We were all created by One Creator, and each of His creations are unique."

That's why we can 'classify' them in the first place. Do you deny the existence of nature? God created it. That's the whole reason we have science---to study it.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 7:00 PM


We are an entirely new species. But according to our classification system we are still apes; we are still animals, we are still a part of nature. Would you not call us a mammal, JLM? Would you not say that we are a part of nature? If so, how does our classification system seem so threatening to you?

Classifying us as apes bothers me alot. It's like we're not a seperate species from them, that we still are them, only look and act differently. I know this may sound absurd to you, but by saying that we are animals, then why is bestiality considered wrong? How can such a sin be wrong if mankind and animals are one and the same?

This is why the evolution theory and those who refer to us as apes bothers me so much. God created mankind in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). No animals were created in God's image. We have always been seperate creations from them, and to chunk us together as one, well, can you see why it bothers me so much?

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 7:13 PM


" It's like we're not a seperate species from them, that we still are them, only look and act differently."
It's the same principle that we classify ourselves as mammals. Do you not consider us mammals either?

"I know this may sound absurd to you, but by saying that we are animals, then why is bestiality considered wrong? How can such a sin be wrong if mankind and animals are one and the same?"

1. We know the difference between right and wrong
2. We are both animal and human. We have animal characteristics and DNA, but also the responsibilities and characteristics that make us a human, too.
3. You may be associating 'animal' with something more than it is meant to be. You have been demonizing 'animal' when it is so clearly a part of us, too much to ignore. Otherwise there would be no reason to study things related to humans on mice. Mice have about 80% of the DNA we do. That's why model organisms work. If we had no relatedness to animals at all then any study on model organisms would be moot. But they work, don't they?

"God created mankind in the image of God (Genesis 1:26)."
Here again, implies that the "image of God" refers to physical appearance. Because when we talk about spiritual connection, that is separate from the physical, right?

" We have always been seperate creations from them, and to chunk us together as one, well, can you see why it bothers me so much?"
I just think you have to understand that us being a part of nature isn't a thing to be ashamed of or to demonize. Every part of God's creation is good. He said so himself. We share a part of his creation in the form of evolutionary ancestry that ties us with everything on earth. Isn't that cool? At the same time, we have a soul, the thing that makes us have this Image of God, and everything that goes along with it. Isn't that AWESOME?

This is why science and religion don't CONTRADICT each other they COMPLEMENT each other. Science studies of our 'nature' and religion studies our 'humanity.'

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 7:22 PM


Here again, implies that the "image of God" refers to physical appearance. Because when we talk about spiritual connection, that is separate from the physical, right?

Well, if you look just a wee bit further in Genesis, "image and likeness" are used again:

Genesis 5:3

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 7:27 PM


And Seth is more than just Adam's son in a physical sense, too, right?

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 7:29 PM


1. We know the difference between right and wrong

That doesn't really explain why it would be wrong to have sex with an animal.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 7:30 PM


On that personal note, I think saying that God is similar to us physically is limiting Him. That is why I think "in His image" meaning that we look 'physically' like him conjures up "the bearded old man in the sky." Wouldn't that put limits on his omnipresence and greatness? In my opinion he is more of the spiritual, but when He sent His son down on earth, he assumed a physical human shape. Maybe that phrase was alluding to the New Testament?

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 7:32 PM


@Bethany: It's wrong because it's another species.

When you look at cats and dogs, do you see cats having sex with dogs or vice versa? No.

Why is that? Because they are of a different species. Animals only procreate within their species, not outside their species.

And before you bring up mules (donkey/horse mating) that is different because a) mules are sterile b) it's usually forced breeding, horses and donkeys don't "get jiggy with it" for funsies.

Posted by: Rae at April 13, 2008 7:37 PM


What about apes? Is it wrong to have sex with them? That's what I'm talking about...not other species.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 7:38 PM


I mean, if we are truly apes, wouldn't it make sense that it was okay to have sex with another ape? Even to get married to an ape?

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 7:40 PM


Bethany, we are another species from other apes. That is what a species is, reproductive isolation.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 7:41 PM


PIP,
Here, read Genesis 1...it will only take you a couple of minutes. Please notice the verses that I bolded. This shows that these things happened in what we refer to as a 24-hour day. Animals were created THE SAME DAY that we were! If you don't feel like reading the whole chapter, I totally understand...but PLEASE....read Genesis 2:5-7 at the bottom of the post, ok???

Genesis 1
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


PIP,
Now, this is REALLY cool...

Genesis 2:5-7

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

PIP,
Do you see why creationists have a problem with evolution now???

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 7:42 PM


Oh! Also, would it not be possible for an ape to carry a human child, if we truly are of the same species?
Or a human to be able to carry an ape's child?

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 7:42 PM


Bethany: We're *not* the same species as apes. Species is much more specific than being in the same "family" as apes. Domesticated cats, lions, tigers, leopards, etc are all in the same families, but they are all distinctly different species.

Yes, we are in the same family as apes, chimpanzees, and monkeys, but none of them interbreed...because they are DIFFERENT species.

Posted by: Rae at April 13, 2008 7:46 PM


JLM,

why are we created out of water in one story, and out of dust in another?

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 7:46 PM


get jiggy with it

Rae, LOL! that was adorable!!!!

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 7:47 PM


PIP 7:46 Where did you get that from? where in the Bible does it say we're created out of water?

Rae, I'm going to respond t your post in a minute...I'm on the phone :)

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 7:50 PM


Hehe, pip, I love you! I've read this discussion, and I have to tell you that your head could begin to hurt if you keep banging it against the wall known as the creationist/evolution discussion.

I can let you borrow my helmet, though. :)

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 13, 2008 7:51 PM


Rae is always adorable, JLM! :D

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 7:51 PM


Well bethany, in the first story there was abundant water, and in the 2nd story only dust. God created the Earth through water in the first story, through earth in the 2nd.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 7:56 PM


Bethany,
I know, right?

Rae & Pip,
so we're NOT apes, then, right?

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 7:57 PM


Elizabeth, don't worry, I got one ;)


Bethany, there are more than a few differences between the first story and the second.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 7:57 PM


JLM,

we are apes, but 'ape' does not refer to a species! Species are defined by their reproductive isolation. Chimps and Orangs are NOT the same species!

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 7:59 PM


PIP,
Genesis 1 is referred to as the "Creation Hymn"...Genesis 2 is referred to as "the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

Genesis 3 is the account of Adam's line
Genesis 4 is the account of Noah.
etc., etc.

Genesis begins with eth "Creation Hymn", followed by 10 accounts which constitute the framework of Genesis.

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 8:04 PM


So Genesis 1 is a Hymn and not something to be taken literally?

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 8:09 PM


@JLM: You are still getting confused with the difference between species and "families".

Yes, we are "apes", *but* the term "ape" is a very general term. Chimps and orangutans are apes, but they don't interbreed.

Posted by: Rae at April 13, 2008 8:09 PM


here's something pretty cool, too, PIP...

Day 1: Light and dark
Day 2: Sea and sky
Day 3: Fertile earth
Day 4: Lights of day and night
Day 5: Creatures of water and air
Day 6: Creatures of the land; land animals; humans' provision of food.

the six days from three pairs (days 1 & 4, days 2& 5, days 3&6). In the first of each pair, the realm is created that is later populated by the objects of beings that are created in the second.

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 8:10 PM


So Genesis 1 is a Hymn and not something to be taken literally

The bible is a book written by man, but inspired by God. God told the men what to write down. Yes, it is considered a hymn, maybe one that was sung by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? (hymns constituted a major part of the very earliest forms of literature). God revealed the remote past, as later the distant future was made. Although it is considered a "hymn", it's still God's word!!!

Genesis 2 is not contradictory to Genesis 1, it is supplemental to it. It is sometimes referred to as "the second creation story". It starts with a reference to the desolate condition of the earth, (early part of third day in Genesis 1), then gives some details omitted from Genesis 1. From there, it gives account of the Fall. But again, it is not contradictory to Genesis 1, it is supplemental to it.

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 8:19 PM


Why were things created in a different order in gen's 1 and 2?

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 8:33 PM


Why is it so difficult to accept a different perspective on things based on knowledge we gain, knowledge impossible without God?

If God gave us a brain, and we use it, and find interesting patterns in nature that give us a new perspective on scripture, why would that be inherently bad?

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 8:38 PM



Bethany: We're *not* the same species as apes. Species is much more specific than being in the same "family" as apes. Domesticated cats, lions, tigers, leopards, etc are all in the same families, but they are all distinctly different species.
Yes, we are in the same family as apes, chimpanzees, and monkeys, but none of them interbreed...because they are DIFFERENT species.

I see what you're saying.

But a certain percentage of animals may interbreed with other animals. You gave the example of donkeys and horses breeding resulting in mules. Excellent example. However it happens, it is possible, and mules can be born from this union. There are also examples in other species interbreeding and producing offspring. Such as tiger and the lion producing a liger.
You may still say sterility is an issue. But then, you can look at the wolf and jackal, who can reproduce and have fertile offspring, called huskals.
You can also look at the barred owl and the spotted owl, who can produce a sparred owl, who is fertile as well.

Does the fact that this can happen in nature successfully mean anything? That perhaps there would be no sin in a human breeding with an ape, to produce an ape-human chimera? Could they successfully produce a half human- half ape, and if so, would this make it okay?

I have heard the argument made for homosexuality- that 10 percent of animals are born homosexual, so 10 percent of humans must be as well (that figure is wrong, but I digress)...the point is, if you allow it for homosexuality, for nature in animals to dictate what is okay for humans, then you would have to let nature dictate whether inter-breeding was okay. Then you get on a slippery slope towards allowing all kinds of things. Do you see what I am trying to say?


(oh and please don't take that as a start to a homosexual debate. Let's stay on the creationism one! LOL )

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 8:38 PM


Pretty in Pink, in response to Gen. 1 and 2:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp

and here:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-ordercreation.html


Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 8:41 PM


PIP,
Here's Genesis 2....Please let me know where you think that things were created out of order. I'm not sure what you mean.

1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

11The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

12And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

13And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

14And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 8:47 PM


If God gave us a brain, and we use it, and find interesting patterns in nature that give us a new perspective on scripture, why would that be inherently bad?

The same reason it would be bad to gain a new perspective on scripture, allowing abortion. Allowing rape, allowing different things and saying that the bible justifys them because of this verse, or that verse, instead of taking the Word as it is written. The Bible says we are to "rightly divide" his word and to "study to show ourselves approved". If we spend more time studying evolution than we do the Bible, of course it's going to take precedence over what the Bible says in our minds, and we automatically will want to reshape what the Bible says to fit our new beliefs, but that does not make it right. We can't shape God into who we want Him to be. He is who He is.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 8:47 PM


Thank you for posting the scriptures, JLM!

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 8:49 PM


Well bethany, in the first story there was abundant water, and in the 2nd story only dust. God created the Earth through water in the first story, through earth in the 2nd.

I'm not recalling the water story. Are you talking about God moving on the face of the waters BEFORE he created everything on the earth? Or are you talking about something else?

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 8:50 PM


Interesting note on Genesis 2:4...

4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

In Genesis 1, the Creator is called "God" (Elohim)....a "generic" name of the Supreme Being. In this verse, it is "the Lord God" (Yahweh Elohim), His personal name. This is the first step in God's revelation of Himself!!!!

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 8:51 PM


Here is the part with the water. If you'll read it in it's entirety, the water is not what we are formed from, not at all. It is the dust that we are created from. I have never seen any mention of being created out of water, unless you are speaking of spiritually being born of the Holy Spirit?
'**********************

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 8:52 PM


@Bethany: Those are exceptions to the rule.

Yes, ligers and mules are sterile, meaning even though they *can* breed, it's a futile mating, meaning it's worthless because it doesn't continue on, it's a genetic dead end.

Now for the wolf/jackal, owl stuff. There is a possibility that genetically they *are* similar enough that they are merely different forms of the same species (much like dog and cat breeds). Now I'll have to look at this, but there are instances where somethings are determined to be "different species" physically when genetically they are the same species.

Humans and chimps are far enough apart where it would not be a viable mating, it is *very* likely that our sperm and ova are incompatible with each other (meaning human sperm could not fertilize a chimp ova, and vice versa), because while we are *related* to chimps and we are very similar genetically, we are different enough to not even be in the same GENUS, which makes it damn near impossible for any sort of mating to occur.


Posted by: Rae at April 13, 2008 8:52 PM


The Bible says we are to "rightly divide" his word and to "study to show ourselves approved". If we spend more time studying evolution than we do the Bible, of course it's going to take precedence over what the Bible says in our minds, and we automatically will want to reshape what the Bible says to fit our new beliefs, but that does not make it right. We can't shape God into who we want Him to be. He is who He is.

AMEN, Bethany!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 8:55 PM


@Bethany: Those are exceptions to the rule.
Yes, ligers and mules are sterile, meaning even though they *can* breed, it's a futile mating, meaning it's worthless because it doesn't continue on, it's a genetic dead end.
Now for the wolf/jackal, owl stuff. There is a possibility that genetically they *are* similar enough that they are merely different forms of the same species (much like dog and cat breeds). Now I'll have to look at this, but there are instances where somethings are determined to be "different species" physically when genetically they are the same species.
Humans and chimps are far enough apart where it would not be a viable mating, it is *very* likely that our sperm and ova are incompatible with each other (meaning human sperm could not fertilize a chimp ova, and vice versa), because while we are *related* to chimps and we are very similar genetically, we are different enough to not even be in the same GENUS, which makes it damn near impossible for any sort of mating to occur.

OKay, I hate to do this, cause I just said I wasn't going to be discussing homosexuality anymore on this thread, but what you have said is a perfect analogy of our argument against homosexuality. "Homosexuality is the exception to the rule. Homosexuality is a dead end (no reproduction). Any mating between them is not viable. Etc etc etc. "

But I'm not sure what your position is on homosexuality now (it may be different than it was before) so I may be wrong about my assumption that I have made just now. Forgive me if I am wrong.

But anyone who believes that homosexuality is okay, and believes that bestiality is wrong, would need to explain that to me based on my argument above.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 8:59 PM


Haven't you noticed that animals were created before man in Genesis 1 and after man in genesis 2?

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 9:04 PM


Bethany,

clearly one began with abundant water, one in a desert-like setting. I also read that the two stories were found at different times; they were not written together.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 9:08 PM


...

I've just been trying to explain to you how we can be apes but why we can't mate with other species that are also termed "apes" and also why other animals can't breed with members of other species.

Heterosexual couples that are either infertile/sterile or choose not to have children are also genetic dead ends. Sure, they may have the "capability" to have kids, but they don't, so the end result is still the same. Homosexual couples are of the same species, which is just a tad different from somebody boinking a donkey.

Consent is also an issue. We can't communicate with animals accurately, so we can't garner consent from the animals, but gay couples are capable of giving understandable consent.

Again, this is not the topic at hand, we are not discussing homosexuality and its morality, and I'd prefer not to get into that conversation again.

Posted by: Rae at April 13, 2008 9:09 PM


PIP, you're making very big assumptions here. Hopefully this will help you understand.

God said that it happened within a matter of a DAY. He saw that it was good, and he created them AFTER THEIR KIND. (caps for emphasis, not shouting) notice it says repeatedly, "after THEIR kind, after THEIR kind" And then it was done. And God saw that it was good. It was DONE. There was nothing more to do, as it was complete.

Then, after making animals after THEIR kind, he makes man in HIS likeness and HIS image, (after HIS kind) and creates him specifically to have dominion over the beasts of the field and the fowl of the air,And over every creeping thing. Then that was done, it was good, it was complete.

*****

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 9:10 PM


another difference, female was created in first creation story for reproduction; second for intimacy.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 9:10 PM


No problem, Rae, I just felt like I had to explain my point there. It wasn't so much about homosexuality as it was about the beastiality thing anyway. lol
I do see where you are coming from here.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 9:12 PM


PIP, there are not two creation storys. There is one creation story in the Bible. There was water in the beginning of the creation story, however before God made humans, he made dry land, and we were made out of the dust of that dry land. I don't see where you keep coming up with two creation accounts. There is only one.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 9:13 PM


Stories, not storys! LOL

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 9:14 PM


PIP,

Did you notice this?:

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

(if you belive that God's Word is Truth) This refutes the notion that all species of animals evolved from a single, common, primeval organism. It supports the scientific evidence that living creatures have adapted over time to thier environment, while there is no convincing evidence that one species of animal has evolved into another.

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 9:15 PM


Yes, JLM, yes!

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 9:16 PM


Oh, and just so you know Bethany, I looked up stuff on the wolf-dog hybrid stuff.

The way a viable and productive mating occurs between two species is if they are *closely* related enough, meaning there is enough homology between DNA sequences in chromosomes (as well as identical numbers of chromosomes) for the chromosomes to pair correctly during mitosis and meiosis. If the chromosomes are different enough (meaning the number of chromosomes are off or there isn't enough homology for the chromosomes to pair correctly during mitosis or meiosis), the cell undergoes apoptosis and dies.

Some matings between domesticated dogs and wild "dogs" (coyotes, jackals, wolves, and foxes, etc) are productive (as your example between jackals and dogs, as well as wolves and dogs, but I'll talk about this later). However, there are things like "doxes" or "dog-fox" combinations are not productive due to a different number of chromosomes or not enough homology due to the branching from a common ancestor occurring longer ago.

I suppose you are also wondering why wolf/domesticated dog matings are rather successful, and it's because wolves and dogs are the same species, but are genetically different enough to be labelled as "sub species".

Wolf = Canis lupus lupus
Domesticated Dog = Canis lupus familiaris

Posted by: Rae at April 13, 2008 9:18 PM


PIP,
Genesis 2 = SUPPLEMENT to Genesis 1

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 9:19 PM


Also JLM, regarding your 9:15 post, 1 Corinthians goes hand in hand with it:

38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 9:20 PM


"God said that it happened within a matter of a DAY."

Why limit God to human days? I don't believe a day for him would be a day for us, especially considering that we define a day via the rotation of the earth, which didn't exist until at least the second "day."

"He saw that it was good, and he created them AFTER THEIR KIND. (caps for emphasis, not shouting) notice it says repeatedly, "after THEIR kind, after THEIR kind"

Ah, so maybe that means they evolved?

"And then it was done. And God saw that it was good."
Yes all of his animal creations were good.

"It was DONE. There was nothing more to do, as it was complete."
Well you agree that things are still evolving, right? New species are being observed to happen all the time. To take this literally you should deny microevolution too.

"Then, after making animals after THEIR kind, he makes man in HIS likeness and HIS image, (after HIS kind) and creates him specifically to have dominion over the beasts of the field and the fowl of the air,And over every creeping thing. Then that was done, it was good, it was complete."
Man is very good at having culture and cultivating the earth and hunting the animals. As omnivores we became very good at that. So we are dominions over that. But by dominion there is an expectation of responsibility, so that includes environmental responsibility and humane treatment of animals/nature.

But again, do you follow the order of 1 or 2? In the 2nd story animals were created after man.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 9:21 PM


That's interesting, Rae. :)

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 9:21 PM


Why limit God to human days?

Because He wrote the Bible with us in mind.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 9:22 PM


"He saw that it was good, and he created them AFTER THEIR KIND. (caps for emphasis, not shouting) notice it says repeatedly, "after THEIR kind, after THEIR kind"

Ah, so maybe that means they evolved?

how in the world did you draw the conclusion you just stated, from that?

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 9:23 PM


JLM,

"after its kind" could translate to mean they evolved and diversified.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 9:25 PM



But again, do you follow the order of 1 or 2? In the 2nd story animals were created after man.

I follow the order of both. Please refer to the links in my April 13, 2008 8:41 PM post.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 9:25 PM


PIP...SUPPLEMENT!!!

Here, look at this:

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

11The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

12And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

13And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

14And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Do you think that this means God put man in the Garden twice???

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 9:26 PM


bethany,

most biblical scholars recognize 2 biblical accounts of creation.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 9:26 PM


JLM,

NO, I am trying to say that these are 2 stories written about different times by different people that are the precursor for the Jewish people.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 9:28 PM


"after its kind" could translate to mean they evolved and diversified.

"After their kind" altogether, has the Hebrew root: מין
Which means:

1) kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals)

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H04327&t=kjv

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 9:29 PM


PIP,
Yes...there are two accounts of ONE Creation. Genesis 2 is a SUPPLEMENT and gives more detail to Genesis 1

Look at Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. Those are 4 accounts of Jesus in those books. That doesn't mean that Jesus came 4 times, does it???

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 9:29 PM


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 9:29 PM


bethany,
most biblical scholars recognize 2 biblical accounts of creation.

JLM answered this perfectly at 9:29

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 9:30 PM


Bethany, where does that contradict my interpretation?

JLM, the writer did not witness creation, either.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 9:31 PM


*snaps on helmet* ;)

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 9:32 PM


There is one kind of beasts, PIP. There is one kind of flesh of man. There is a distinction made between the kind (species, if you want to call it that) of animals, and of people.

People and animals do not have a common ancestor.

They both have an ancestor which was after THEIR kind.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 9:32 PM


*snaps on helmet* ;)

PIP, if you want to take a break ,that's fine with me. I'm kind of getting tired myself! Maybe we can get some sleep and start again in the morning?

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 9:34 PM


What I am trying to say here I guess is that Genesis creation accounts are not like eyewitness accounts and therefore are more like poems or abstractions, but the basic idea is the same! And that's all that matters!

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 9:34 PM


Well I'm going to go ahead and do that anyway. I really am getting tired. And I was planning to make a rag doll for Bonnie and I've been here debating instead LOL
I will talk to you girls later!

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 9:36 PM


NO, I am trying to say that these are 2 stories written about different times by different people that are the precursor for the Jewish people.

Jewish tradition lists Moses as the author of the entire book of Genesis, (and also Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy)

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 9:37 PM


(during his 40 years in the Wilderness!)

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 9:38 PM


"People and animals do not have a common ancestor."

You are allowed to think that but the evidence says otherwise.


It's okay with me if you all want to wait until morning.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 9:39 PM


"People and animals do not have a common ancestor."

You are allowed to think that but the evidence says otherwise.


It's okay with me if you all want to wait until morning.


JLM, read that link I sent ya.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 9:39 PM


JLM, the writer did not witness creation, either

Are you saying that Moses just made it up, then? Or do you believe as I do, that God told him what to write down?

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 9:40 PM


okay one more thing before I go... JLM, the Bible itself confirms Moses to be the writer of the first 5 books of the Bible.

Read the entire article here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/moses.asp

The Pentateuch claims in many places that Moses was the writer, e.g. Exodus 17:14; 24:4–7; 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 22, 24.
4.

Many times in the rest of the Old Testament, Moses is said to have been the writer, e.g. Joshua 1:7–8; 8:32–34; Judges 3:4; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 2 Chronicles 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 8:1; 13:1; Daniel 9:11–13.
5.

In the New Testament, Jesus frequently spoke of Moses’ writings or the Law of Moses, e.g. Matthew 8:4; 19:7–8; Mark 7:10; 12:26; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:46–47; 7:19. Jesus said that those who ‘hear not [i.e. reject] Moses’ would not be persuaded ‘though one rose from the dead’ (Luke 16:31). Thus we see that those churches and seminaries which reject the historicity of Moses’ writings often also reject the literal bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
6.

Other New Testament speakers/writers said the same thing, e.g. John 1:17; Acts 6:14; 13:39; 15:5; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 2 Corinthians 3:15; Hebrews 10:28.

Posted by: Bethany at April 13, 2008 9:41 PM


John 5:46

(this is Jesus speaking....)

If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 9:41 PM


Later, of course, commentators noted that it was not possible for both creation stories to be literal history, but writing a literal history was never the priest’s goal anyway. How could anyone not see the contradictions? Most obviously, the order of creation is different in the two stories. In the six-day creation story, the order of creation is plants, birds and fish, mammals and reptiles, and finally man to reign over all created before him, while in the Adam and Eve story, the creation order is reversed, with man coming first, then plants and animals. The two creation stories also have different narrative rhythms, different settings, and different names for God. In the six-day story, the creation of humanity occurs through a single act and the creator, seeming more cosmic than human-like, is present only through a series of commands. In the Adam and Eve story, on the other hand, man and woman are created through two separate acts and God is present in a hands-on, intimate way. The pre-creation setting in the six-day story is a watery chaos, while in the Adam and Eve version, the setting before creation is a dry dessert. Finally, in the six-day story, the creator is called “Elohim,” while in the other version of events, the creator is “the Lord God” (“Yahweh”).

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 9:43 PM


I believe these are historical stories that Moses wrote down and God was present in that history. Therefore a literal interpretation is not necessary to glean what the main idea is.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 9:53 PM


PIP,
Fine. You just go through life then thinking that the bible is contradictory, so it must be useless. Never pick one up again, and don't ever think for a second that it was God, not some "priest" that wrote it. Eternally-deadly path you are on! (I am saying that out of love for you!)


In the New Testament, Jesus frequently spoke of Moses’ writings or the Law of Moses, e.g. Matthew 8:4; 19:7–8; Mark 7:10; 12:26; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:46–47; 7:19. Jesus said that those who ‘hear not [i.e. reject] Moses’ would not be persuaded ‘though one rose from the dead’ (Luke 16:31). Thus we see that those churches and seminaries which reject the historicity of Moses’ writings often also reject the literal bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

John 5:46

(this is Jesus speaking....)

If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.


Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 9:55 PM


Fine. You just go through life then thinking that the bible is contradictory, so it must be useless. Never pick one up again, and don't ever think for a second that it was God, not some "priest" that wrote it. Eternally-deadly path you are on! (I am saying that out of love for you!)

JLM,

How did you get that Pip thinks the Bible is useless because of anything she said?

Because she doesn't agree with YOU doesn't mean she is on an eternally-deadly path...it just means she has her own opinions. She doesn't say you are on an eternally-deadly path because she doesn't agree with you. I think that's a little bit immature of you to say that to her.

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 13, 2008 10:00 PM


Elizabeth,
Seriously, knock it off. I tolerated your "mood" last night, but honestly, I'm getting sick and tired of your "mood" being directed at me on a consistent basis. Me & PIP & Rae can banter back and forth for weeks and still be O.K. with eachother. If PIP has a problem with me, I'm sure SHE will be more than happy to share it with me.

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 10:07 PM


PIP,
I sure hope that you didn't take my post the way that Elizabeth did. It is a deadly path to take by reading secular views on the bible being contradictory. MANY atheists "claimed" to be former Christians, that said that the reason that they don't believe in God anymore is because the bible contradicts itself. Sally said that, Edyt said that...etc. The bible does NOT contradict itself. If you read commentary that says it does, I'd turn from that commentary fast...it's like poison to your eternal life!

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 10:11 PM


JLM,

Please don't go making broad assumptions again. Reread what I wrote. The 2 creation stories, if taken LITERALLY contradict each other in several ways. However, I take it for its historical and spiritual value. The big spiritual value being that God created us, made us in His image, and that all of his creations are "good." The literal stuff being imagery, such as taking out a "rib" (men and women are fundamentally connected to each other).
Do you see what I'm trying to say? I interpret it differently simple as that. I think there will be some problems when trying to take it literally, the least of these trying to dismiss the loads of physical evidence that lead otherwise.

I wouldn't accuse you of not appreciating the Bible by your interpretation, why are you trying to degrade my faith because of mine?

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 10:12 PM


Lol, I'm not directing anything at you, JLM. I am merely disagreeing with you..and the 2 issues we happened to get into discussions about were these 2. You don't agree with me and that's fine. I really don't care and I'm OK with you. And this is a public board, I can comment on whatever I choose to comment on. I'm not in a "mood" tonight at all, I just don't enjoy people's condescending attitudes because they don't agree. And I will continue to say so, thank you.

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 13, 2008 10:13 PM


JLM,

I don't think the Bible fundamentally contradicts itself. But the 2 creation stories really are different from each other, and most scholars recognize that. I don't think that taking it literally or not has anything to do with ultimate salvation. Most people that would be driven completely secular are the ones told that in order to be christian they MUST denounce evolution. These people are confused by seeing all of the evidence but are told for their salvation they must denounce it rather than find common ground. They are in the most danger of it all.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 10:16 PM


pip, 10:16 p.m. I would have to agree with you there!

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 13, 2008 10:18 PM


PIP,
Your two posts make sense to me, so I guess I can see where you are coming from. WSHEW!!! I thought you were going the route "it must not be true because it contradicts itself". I was worried for you!!!! Thanks for explaining!!!! And yes, I agree that Genesis 1 & 2 whether taking it literally or spiritually will not have any effect on your salvation.

I'm relieved!!!! Again...thanks for explaining, and please don't ever fall into the trap that Sally and Edyt did, ok????

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 10:21 PM


'Kay JLM ;)

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 10:27 PM


Supercool, PIP!

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 10:30 PM


JLM,

I really don't know why you interpret anything I say to you to be overly harsh or critical or whatever, but that is not my intention. We don't agree on some things, it doesn't bother me, and I have no problem debating..but if you are offended my by comments, I apologize. Things are harder to communicate over the internet. If you feel attacked by me, I really do apologize.

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 13, 2008 10:31 PM


I wouldn't accuse you of not appreciating the Bible by your interpretation, why are you trying to degrade my faith because of mine?

PIP,
I have to ask you something here, if you don't mind....Not too long ago, you were telling us how you don't know if you could believe in a God that would send a good person to Hell, and a God like that is one that you wouldn't want to know. I was under the impression from your posts that you didn't know if you wanted to know Him or not because of this.

Have you now accepted Christ as your Savior, want to know God, and are you reading His word now? I'm just curious, too, because you haven't referred to the bible and your interpretations before this. (I hope I get good news with your reply!!!!)

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 11:02 PM


JLM,

It is something I still struggle with, but some of the explanations MK and Bobby have provided me have helped a lot. At this point I'm going to err on the side of mercy over wrath. Again it might come down to interpretation but I've thought about it a little bit and although I may never know who makes it or not I'm going to do my best, hope God helps me out, and work on behalf of others.

So yeah it's still an uneasy topic and there are lots of theories of salvation that I have read about and I've decided to just pray that the best scenario happens.

I'm a theology minor, so I've found many an occasion to explore God's word.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2008 11:15 PM


Thanks for answering, PIP! Prayer works...that's the BEST thing you can do! God will help you out...I promise, He will!

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 11:38 PM


Elizabeth,
Thanks for your post. That was very nice of you! Apology accepted, and if I said anything to you that offended you, I apologize as well. We definitely don't see eye-to-eye on things, that's for sure!!! But it's ok...I'm used to being in the minority...like HisMan said!!! (I kindof like it there, too!!!)

:)

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 11:40 PM


Well, we see eye to eye on one very importatnt thing...abortion. :)

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 13, 2008 11:43 PM


Amen to that, Elizabeth!!!!

Posted by: JLM at April 13, 2008 11:44 PM


Though I think Stupidity overlaps more with politics because never in my life have I seen more stupid decisions made than those by our state and federal governments.

Rae - have to laugh - it's pretty much always that way.

IMO the Federal Gov't, not constrained by fiscal responsibility (and I know that's a stretch for most state gov'ts too) is now so large that there's no turning back, i.e. its primary purpose now is the continuance of its own power and position, rather than any true "serving of the people."

I think that things would have to get worse before they can "get better."

Posted by: Doug at April 14, 2008 8:58 AM


Your assumption that I am gay merely
because I said that what they do in private
is nobody else's business,and that it is for
God to judge them is incorrect.
Darwin was a mild-mannered,kindly and
retiring man,happily married with a large
family.By conservative standards,he led a
life of exemplary family values.He stated that
he had no wish to interfere with or change
any one's religious beliefs.Yet conservatives
always demonize him.He did absolutely no
harm to any one,or the world in general.

Posted by: robert berger at April 14, 2008 10:02 AM


MANY atheists "claimed" to be former Christians, that said that the reason that they don't believe in God anymore is because the bible contradicts itself.

JLM, that is but one of many reasons, and often is the reason that first starts the mind thinking for itself again.

Posted by: Edyt at April 14, 2008 1:13 PM


http://tinyurl.com/3o654m

"Stein's Law."

Not affiliated with Ben Stein, but makes a lot of sense as far as economics.

Warning: may be dry, uninteresting, etc., to some people.

Posted by: Doug at April 14, 2008 10:28 PM