Crazy Texans still trying to put creationism in state’s science books

Religious right creationists on a statewide schoolbook review panel in Texas are very concerned that the state’s new biology textbooks don’t sufficiently debunk evolution.

And at least one reviewer wanted a special section devoted to “creation science,” suggesting of course that a religious theory is actual science.

Another reviewer was upset that the biology book mentioned fossil evidence as proof of evolution’s validity.

And, of course, they’re upset about the discussion of climate change too.

Keep in mind that these nuts, who run the Republican party in Texas, and nationally, want science textbooks to teach kids that Dino the dinosaur really did live with Fred Flintstone.


Oh yes, the creationist museum depicts the “fact” that dinosaurs lived alongside humans in peace only a few thousands years ago.  Then Eve went and ate the apple, some time during the time of Cleopatra, or perhaps the Minoans in Crete, and then everything went to hell.  These folks also teach that Noah had dinosaurs on the ark (yeah, I’m sure that’d have turned out well).

I’d posted a few months back a real 4th grade science test from a South Carolina “christian” school (the test was confirmed as real by Snopes):


My favorite part of the quiz was the response to the “theory” that earth is billions of years old:


Of course, the insanity isn’t just limited to Texas and South Carolina.  GOP presidential candidate, and Florida Senator, Marco Rubio, who already has had some issues with the truth, claimed last winter that the age of the earth is “one of the great mysteries.”  Of course, it’s not a mystery – the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years.  Rubio later relented and admitted that the earth is really 4.5 billion years old, but then added that it’s okay for schools to teach that it’s only 6,000 years old.  Because 2016.

Then there’s Louisiana and Indiana, where voucher schools were using a textbook that claimed that “hippies” of the 1960s were draft dodgers who were rude, didn’t bathe, and worshipped Satan.

Of course, that was nothing compared to Bobby Jindla’s Louisiana, where pro-Klan textbooks teach that the majority of slaves in the south were treated well, and the Klan was a force for good:

Majority of slaves in the old south were treated well: “

A few slave holders were undeniably cruel. Examples of slaves beaten to death were not common, neither were they unknown. The majority of slave holders treated their slaves well.”—United States History for Christian Schools, 2nd ed., Bob Jones University Press, 1991

The Ku Klux Klan was a force for good:

“[The Ku Klux] Klan in some areas of the country tried to be a means of reform, fighting the decline in morality and using the symbol of the cross. Klan targets were bootleggers, wife-beaters, and immoral movies. In some communities it achieved a certain respectability as it worked with politicians.”—United States History for Christian Schools, 3rd ed., Bob Jones University Press, 2001

“As an educator, parent and grandparent, I feel very firmly that creation science based on biblical principles should be incorporated into every biology book that is up for adoption.”

There’s a part of me that wants to just cave to the GOP’s religious extremists and let them turn the South into an even more embarrassing intellectual and moral backwater than it is already is.  But I do realize that many southerners aren’t as hateful as the people running the show in Kentucky and Texas and Louisiana.  And regardless of how messed up the leaders of the national and state Republican parties are, no child deserves to be treated to this kind of intellectual drivel.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

160 Responses to “Crazy Texans still trying to put creationism in state’s science books”

  1. olandp says:

    I see I need to make it simpler for you. Learn to read.

  2. FHLH says:

    Oh, so when someone does not agree with you they must prove themselves to you, but when you disagree with them, you have no need to demonstrate their flaws. He is stupid, thus he can prove it himself, “take my word” for it.

    For the record, I DID direct this comment about his leaving AND your reply to it. That in fact was the whole point of my comment. If he is stupid, why would you care, why must your mind live in the utopia that only seems to exists in faiths that you hate anyways? All you sci-fi fans are always trying to create your own version of what you constantly seek to destroy. Until you can completely, absolutely, argue away the debates posed to you, these are as valid a notion as your Darwin the almighty beliefs of yours. Yours is but a theory, as is religion, so why even feel this way about someone going or coming back. Last I checked, debate and investigation is the basis of science, why must you DOGMATICALLY dismiss all that dismiss all that is presented you from places not from your own liking?

    Sorry for typos, grammar, or anything else by the way, but I had to do this quickly.

  3. olandp says:

    Why should I have to prove that he is stupid? He seems more than capable pf doing that himself. The fact that you can not see it, just proves your mental capacity.

    By the way, my comment was about his statement that he wasn’t coming back, reading comprehension can be a wondrous thing. Perhaps you should try to develop that skill.

  4. FHLH says:

    I love it, sci-junkies get debunked and then when folks say they’re done with you that’s all you can hope for, they leave you alone so you can at least try to wash the minds of the un-initiated into your foolish “religion” of your own. Typical, SO typical. You call creationists pathetic, but you can’t handle a constant debate when the show is one the other foot. It’s all good going to bat day after day against your opponents, but the moment you have to pitch, you run like baby chicks at the sight of a coyote. So what if he came back. You should be able to further “prove” that he is stupid and “uninformed”. You should relish the chance in being able to show your like minded friends how often you can be “right”. Fools, spineless fools, the lot of you, down to the very last one.

  5. Bob Munck says:

    I don’t think anyone has a problem with schools teaching religion, as in “Xtians beleive this, Jews believe this, and Muslims believe this, etc…”.

    Someday that course will be an advanced seminar in the Abnormal Psych curriculum.

  6. Buford says:

    Define ‘teaching religion’. I don’t think anyone has a problem with schools teaching religion, as in “Xtians beleive this, Jews believe this, and Muslims believe this, etc…”. All thinking, rational people, however, have a REAL problem with schools teaching, “God did this thing, and this other thing is a sin, the Bible is true, etc…” as if faith-driven beliefs are verifiable facts.

  7. theot58 says:

    Scoffing and sarcasm is a poor substitute for scientific evidence.

    What evidence is there, which proves (beyond reasonable doubt) that our great.….….…. Great grandfather was as self replicating molecule?

  8. Christopher R Weiss says:

    D’oh! I missed it :(

  9. Bob Munck says:

    How do magnets work?

    Ferromagnetics SUCK.

  10. Bob Munck says:

    Were you there when Napolean was trying to conquer Europe?

    The same question could be asked about the entire contents of the Christian bible.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I think you should know I was making a sarcastic comment initially! Teaching kids “were you there” is definitely more ignorant than considering the evidence.

  12. Christopher R Weiss says:

    While I agree with your philosophical argument, I was trying to focus on scientific or physical evidence that make it clear the human body was not “designed.”

  13. Christopher R Weiss says:

    Dating fossils is more than just radiometric dating. This is only one component. However, there is a simple formula you should probably learn:

    A(t) = A(0) * e ^ (rt)

    This is the formula for exponential change. If r is negative, this is decay, and if r is positive it is growth. This applies to continuously compound interest, population growth, radioactive decay, etc. The amazing thing about radioactive decay is the consistency of half-life of various isotopes. While it is impossible to predict when an individual atom will decay, the entire sample will decay unerringly with formula.

    What we know about eye witness accounts is that they incredibly inaccurate in general. The more stressful the event, the less accurate they become. Consequently, when you claim “where you there” is more credible than radiometric dating, you are demonstrating your extreme ignorance.

    Were you there when Napolean was trying to conquer Europe? No? How do you know it happened? What about George Washington when he crossed the Delaware river? How about Lincoln? Was he really killed by JWB? You believe these things based on the strength of evidence.

    Let’s look at science. Did you meet Newton? How do you know he invented classical mechanics? Did you meet Watson or Crick? How do you know they discovered the structure of DNA? Radioactive decay is far more reliable than most historical sources you would accept as true.

    Again, dating a fossil or a mineral sample is done using several methods, which have only improved over time.

  14. Buford says:

    The bigger issue with ID is why an omnipotent ‘creator’ would create such a crappy system… it’s full of flaws.
    – Why would He make one being have to eat another being to stay alive… rather than simply survive from solar energy, for example?
    – Why would He design diseases and suffering into the system?
    – Why is the majority of the planet uninhabitable to its highest life form?
    – Why do humans need toilet paper?
    – Etc…

    Pretty lousy system for an allegedly ‘intelligent’ designer.

  15. Buford says:

    Your argument is airtight. Your logic is perfectly sound. I am now an Evangelical like you… please see my comment below and let me know how I am doing:

    “How do magnets work?
    – We cannot see so-called ‘magnetism’
    – The only logical explanation is an invisible white man in the clouds uses really long arms to hold magnets to metal”


  16. Anonymous says:

    Radiometric dating.

  17. Bob Munck says:

    So you’re making the point that “nothing lasts forever?” Deep, man, deep.

  18. Christopher R Weiss says:

    Harvard did a study on the impact of prayer on open heart surgery patients. One group was prayed for without their knowledge. One group had nothing done. While the third group was prayed for and they were told a group was paying for them. The first two groups showed no difference in their outcomes. The last group actually did measurably worse than the first two groups. While more study would be required, it appears that when someone is aware a group his praying for him or her, it increases their stress levels and actually makes outcomes more negative.

  19. Christopher R Weiss says:

    Carbon dating is only good for 100k years or less. This is not used to date fossils. Your statement demonstrates your scientific ignorance.

  20. Christopher R Weiss says:

    If this “credible source” could have actually overturned modern evolutionary biology, he or she would have been awarded a Nobel Prize. So far, no such miracle has occurred.

    You have completely missed the point with Lenski’s experiments. One of the claims by creationists is that random mutations must only result in a degradation in the organism. What we see is that all 12 colonies which originated from the strain have diverged. Not only that, but some have developed new abilities that other strains did not such as the ability to digest Citrate.

    The divergence means that some of these colonies actually qualify as new species of E. Coli.

    Phylogenic change takes thousands if not millions of years. The “Cambrian Explosion” occurred over tens of millions of years.

    As you have already been shown, there are several animals with cross “type” features such as monotremes, placental skinks, reptiles with four chambered hearts, fish that breath air and walk on land, etc.

    You are so full it I can’t believe you can continue to copy and paste the same lies over and over and over and over again.

    You work for an engineering firm. I wonder what they would think of your anti-science stances? At some point someone at your company will notice. How will you explain how your religious beliefs force you to reject modern physics, chemistry and biology?

    The only myths and lies are the ones you and your ilk have repeated like some blind mantra.

  21. Christopher R Weiss says:

    Degrees mean nothing unless you post the school, the degree, and your GPA. My graduate work was Michigan State University. While not a powerhouse like MIT or Stanford, it is still a respectable research institution.

    You’re right about honors. No one differentiates your class standing in most graduate programs. Even in medical school, programs are moving away from GPA and class standing.

  22. Moocowmary says:

    There was also the experiment where scientists managed to get amino acids (the first step in getting organized cells) to form from only the constituent elements. All quite fascinating.

  23. Ninong says:

    But, but… how could someone with “two Masters, with High Honors” be wrong about anything?

    Well, for starters he’s wrong about having “two Masters, with High Honors” because no university on the planet awards honors with graduate degrees. Only undergraduate degrees and in the United States the classifications are “cum laude” (with honor), “magna cum laude” (with great honor), and “summa cum laude” (with highest honor). In Britain and the former Commonwealth Countries the classifications are different but, like the U.S., they award “honours” only with undergaduate degrees.

    He’s clearly an illiterate fraud posing as an “expert” on Intelligent Design, which was a term dreamed up by the Creationists as a euphemism for Creation Science.

  24. Ninong says:

    “…by Random Natural selection…”
    I hope this doesn’t come as too much of a shock to you, ttechsan, but natural selection is not random. Mutations are random and natural selection selects those that prove beneficial.

  25. Bob Munck says:

    “the Pits”

  26. Anonymous says:

    “Where you there” is definitely more credible than carbon dating.

  27. Anonymous says:

    I have a feeling you can’t understand physics either.
    Yes, there was an experiment proving evolution (organization of life into higher forms over generations) in a lab. Look it up.

  28. BeccaM says:

    And sadly, part of the problem is standardized testing itself. Kids nowadays aren’t taught how to use their minds and how to learn, but simply to cram information in there until the next test comes around.

    When they graduate, the only thing they’re good at — if they’re good at anything — is taking standardized tests.

  29. olandp says:

    You already said you were leaving and not coming back, liar.

  30. olandp says:

    I believe Karmanot said that Texas is an ass.

  31. olandp says:

    But religion is just a theory, in the non-scientific meaning.

  32. olandp says:

    It isn’t exactly fair to judge the American college and university system based on those “graduates” in the NFL and NBA. Athletes are not always the sharpest knives in the drawer, although some are. I recently finished Chris Kluwe’s “Beautifully Unique Sparkle ponies: On Myths, Morons, Free Speech, Football and Assorted Absurdities.”

    it was quite amusing, he has a rapier wit and uses proper grammar.

    GWB just proves that with money and the necessary connections you can have anything. His grandfather, a former Senator, was on the board at Yale, his father a Congressman when W was accepted at Harvard. Ivy league really doesn’t prove intellectual heft if you come from the inside. If you get in from the outside and do well, chances are that you are really outstanding.

  33. BeccaM says:

    I have no patience any more for his kind, demanding we produce college-level science curricula on demand, just so they can predictably attempt once again to Gish Gallop the very underpinnings of the scientific method.

    And if you can’t produce every little detail, exactly right and in sufficient granularity, it’s always, “Aha! That proves the invisible sky man with the anger management issues MUST have done it!”

    Which is and always will be bronze-age bullshit. Not to mention utterly illogical.

    I figure if people like him want to willingly stew in his own ignorance, so be it. The world will move on and progress just fine without him. And his offspring will be the ones flipping burgers.

  34. olandp says:

    Like they say in the Emergency Room, “You can’t fix stupid.”

  35. theot58 says:

    Well said ttechsan – I agree with you completely. Darwinian/Macro evolution is based on wild imagination and interpretation of the observeable data.

    These dogmatic evolutionists have been hounding me too – not with credible scientific evidence but with slander and name calling.

    I have followed so many rabbit trail that led nowhere; they keep making all these wild claims but when you scrutinize the evidence it is a complete farse.

    Richard Lenski has tried for years to emulation “evolution” in the lab using thousands of generations of bacteria – but he has NOT been able to. He starts of bacteria and ends with bacteria. Darwinian/macro evolution DISPROVEN!!!.

    Do a YouTube search on “Kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful scientific arguments which debunk the dying Darwinian/Macro evolution myth. (You can listen to the complete audio transcripts by going to

  36. olandp says:

    Thank you, so nice to be appreciated!

  37. Christopher R Weiss says:

    The animals before the cambrian explosion were soft bodied, and made up primarily of single celled or colony based organisms with no skeletons or large body masses. Things like planeria worms have no fossils either nor do most soft bodied creatures. We don’t see things like exoskeletons or shells until the Cambrian period. Why creationists claim this proves creationism is beyond me. What we have is explainable paucity of data. Fossils are actually very rare, representing less than 1% of all species that ever lived. Looking backward there are many gaps because of how rare fossils truly are. You are pointing to a gap and saying… “Ah ha! There’s god.” rather than making the honest statement “and this is where we have no good data.”

    You want to see actual experiments on evolution?

    Lenski’s long running experiments with E. coli

    Endler’s experiments with guppies

    Radcliffe’s experiments where he showed how yeast could evolve into functioning multi-celled organisms.

    Viable mutations in human are almost constant, and most go unnoticed. I carry the mutation for red hair. 1 in 1,000 embryos have a merged chromosome and many still remain viable and fertile when they reach adulthood.

    The Stanley Miller experiments have been reproduced and extended by other scientists such as Juan Oro. The skepticism around Miller’s work has to do with his assumptions about the make-up of the early atmosphere. His experimental processes are still valid.

    You are so completely wrong it is laughable.

  38. Christopher R Weiss says:

    Yet… you refuse to respond to the objections that have shown you are completely incorrect.

    I have pointed to programming techniques that produce useful information from random mutation and natural selections. I have pointed to natural mutations that lengthen protein chains. I have pointed to labs that have demonstrated how self-replicating molecules can emerge.

    There is no desperation. The only thing we see is your blind fanaticism, which typifies zealots and crazies like you.

  39. karmanot says:

    “How many of you have actually studied the bad science of evolution?” Oh please bring it on. This is hilarious.

  40. Naja pallida says:

    Are you implying something about Tex’s ass?

  41. karmanot says:

    Elevated snark of the best sort!

  42. karmanot says:


  43. karmanot says:

    Thank you O. That works!

  44. karmanot says:


  45. karmanot says:

    Perhaps one could consider Texas, the butt end of the South.

  46. karmanot says:


  47. ttechsan says:

    BTW you do know DNA in a “simple” cell shows up fully formed w/o evolving. How did that happen. Cambrian explosion shows fully formed organisms and animals which evolutions have to guess with strange theories to explain away w/o facts only imagination. I thought science was factual not imagination. Evolution is imaginary not proven facts. I’m willing to have you disprove me but you can’t. All you can do is call me names etc and prove your own lack of science knowledge. I will only reply now when you have science FACTS refuting what I have stated. You do Stanley Miller experiment was rigged to and no one has been able to reproduce it when done correctly. If they had they would have done so and gone forward but they can’t. Mutations have a wall or inherit limit they won’t go until the animal organism is sterile etc and can’t reproduce. Do some real science study and study evolutions own words and read analytically for once.

  48. ttechsan says:

    Yes because all you guys do is call names and divert the subject when you can’t refute what I have said scientifically. So until you can prove DNA can add info so evol can occur. Until you can give, which should be numerous since evol occurred so often of Design w/o a Designer and a Computer Program, Like DNA is, w/o a Programmer then I have no need to come back since I have proven evol is disproven and the more we learn the more it is disproven and the more weird the theories, interesting for a proven fact it is so many theories, showing desperation!

  49. Vicky says:

    Indeed – I saw a fascinating documentary about this very issue called “The Revisionaries”. Worth watching.

  50. Ninong says:

    Why is Texas not the South? It was one of the original seven Southern states that formed the Confederate States of America, later joined by Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina.

    Are you saying that Texas is “the West?”

  51. milli2 says:

    These people’s beliefs can provide a great way to save on healthcare costs. If they want this crap in science books, then whenever they get cancer or need heart surgery, they should just be told by their doctors that prayer is enough to cure them.

  52. Ninong says:

    Standardized tests have proven that American students are dumber than the students in most other developed countries, at least when it comes to mathematics and sciences. The results are very discouraging because 100 years ago our students were the best educated in the world.

  53. Ninong says:

    “No wonder most of the world thinks Americans are idiots…”

    “But ya are, Blanche, ya are…”

  54. Ninong says:

    Whoever said DNA evolved fully formed? Where did you get that idea? DNA evolved gradually from a simpler replicator like RNA, since it can catalyze its own duplication. The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids. A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA — all without any protein enzymes.

  55. Ninong says:

    Your use of the phrase “information to build” in your original question betrays either woeful ignorance of biological evolution or willful ignorance. Either way, there is nothing I can say that would move you.

    I can’t publish basic courses in all of the physical sciences in response to your demand so I will have to bid you adieu. May you live a blissful life.

  56. Ninong says:

    Is that because Texas has one statewide agency that approves all textbooks for the state? Is that different from California? I know California sets the core standards for what must be taught at each level but I don’t know if the state picks the textbooks or if the local school boards are allowed to do that for themselves.

    I believe California schools are moving quickly to digital alternatives to printed textbooks. I remember reading about one school in particular that has eliminated textbooks altogether, at least for certain grades, and switched to digital alternatives.
    I also remember reading a few years ago that California refused to purchase certain textbooks that were designed to be acceptable to Texas because they were not considered appropriate for California’s children.

    There are schools where I now live, Louisiana, that actually teach a fictionalized version of not only history, but even biology, astronomy, geology and just about every other topic you can think of. The science textbooks used to teach children in grammar school have been made more acceptable to “Bible-believers.” Gov. Bobby Jindal see nothing wrong with that in spite of his scientific background. Gotta get them votes!

    In history class they are taught that the Civil War was primarily about the South’s desire for independence from the North so that they could govern themselves. The fact that it was primarily about slavery is not mentioned at all. The most damaging for any students who hope to one day become a doctor or an astronaut or a geologist is what they do to science in their textbooks. It’s criminal and child abuse!

  57. Bob Munck says:

    when did religious freedom become exclusively Christianity?

    That’s obviously what the Founders intended. Why do you think the First Amendment is titled Freedom of Christianity, Press, Expression?

  58. pappyvet says:

    SO since when did religious freedom become exclusively Christianity?
    How about a few classes about Woden ,oh my but the sweating would never stop.

  59. ArthurH says:

    Ah yes! A pure example of the Mortimer Snerdization of the Christian mind! A good editor could have edited theot58’s tract to a single word, “Dah!” How could you ignore how fast reproducing species like germs and viruses have adapted to be immune to the antibodies medicine has produced, and in a few documented cases require the antibodies to survive. Or how bedbugs became immune to DDT? Everything evolves except those who expect God to be a vaudeville magician.

  60. chrislib says:

    First, Texas isn’t “the south,” so don’t lump us Tennesseans with them in any way. Second, many of us Tennesseans are as hateful as these clowns, we just hate the clowns for being, well, clowns. Finally, things would be somewhat different if the theofascists would accept what even many conservative christians know: the King James Bible is just not it, having been deliberately mistranslated to make the king look good.

  61. olandp says:

    You beat me to it, I should have read a little further… great minds…

  62. olandp says:

    Lets see the faces on Mt. Rushmore happened by Random Natural selection of wind by random chance because the mountain needed it to occur w/o a Design or Designer.

    The Old Man in the Mountain?

  63. olandp says:

    I would imagine you are conned quite often. By the way where is your scientific evidence to show, beyond a doubt, that intelligent design is true? Circular arguments are not evidence.

  64. olandp says:

    “Still waiting for my answers and examples” Still outstanding in your field I see.

    “Still waiting for my answers and examples” Still out, standing in your field I see.

    Fixed that for you Karmanot.

  65. Christopher R Weiss says:

    Students should be prevented in science class from even discussing the possibility of intelligent design because it is demonstrably false.

    Why does the vas deferens in all animals with descended testicles loop over and under the urethra? Simple answer -> it wasn’t designed, it was adapted.

    Why does the recurrent laryngeal nerve loop down the neck and up to the voice box? Simple answer -> it adapted to the evolution of a neck rather than being designed to be part of the neck.

    I could go on and on about how ID fails even the simplest examination. However, your religious fanaticism will prevent you from even considering the possibility that a literal reading of the bible could be false.

  66. Christopher R Weiss says:

    Look above. Self-replicating molecule systems have been developed in labs several times, including ones with plausible paths to the development of DNA.

    Also, how life started has nothing to do with the scientific validity of evolution.

    Again, your lack of understanding is profound and unchanging.

    What proof do we have that you have the background to make the bold claims you have made?

    What is your scientifically viable alternative to evolution?

  67. Christopher R Weiss says:

    We have been through this before. Why are the heart and lungs asymmetrical and messy? Answer: Evolutionary adaption. Why are the cranial nerves coming from a our brain looping down and back up the neck? Answer: our very ancient ancestors did not have necks. Why are our sinuses at the wrong angle for a creature who walks upright? Answer: our ancestors walked on all fours and the angle of our sinuses has not changed as our gait changed.

    Your ignorance and blatant and deliberate misunderstanding of the science is irrelevant. There are plenty of people who can’t understand or accept relativity too, but it is still true.

  68. Christopher R Weiss says:

    Your common dismissal as “they’re interpreting the evidence wrong” simply doesn’t hold water anymore Theo.

    Your DNA is evidence of common descent. Your morphology shows our direct connection with great apes. Your embryology shows the connection with other species.

    Our obvious evolutionary adaption instead of design shows that your proposed alternatives fail immediately under scrutiny.

    There is a reason evolutionary biology has withstood 150 years of scrutiny, adjusting to incorporate genetics and molecular biology – it’s true!

    Your mythology is simply wrong.

    Please stay on Australian web sites. We have enough crazies in the US without importing nuts like you.

  69. Christopher R Weiss says:

    Here’s the thing…. Evolutionary biology accounts for the majority of things we see and observe in living species. Nuts like you are continually focused on what you see as exceptions, while ignoring the explanatory power of the theory.

    The only thing amiss with evolutionary biology is that the crazies like you get to post as if you actually know and understand anything about science, raising false concerns and lying as if it were Nobel prizing winning science.

    I have seen you use this quotation at least 15 times. My response is still So what?

    What replaces evolutionary biology? Intelligent design fails immediately. Your young earth creationism is beyond absurd. Really… find an real example of something that counters evolutionary biology.

    You have still never explained how the make up of species on the planet has changed over time? The sheer biomass we see in things like our oil and fossil fuels demonstrates that all the life that ever lived never could have lived on the planet in the 10k years you claim.

  70. Christopher R Weiss says:

    Theo -> you are actively anti-science. Nothing, and I mean nothing, that you have posted could pass as science. You cite Sanford, Samit, Carson, etc. None of whom have had a single position on evolution that has withstood even the most superficial examination.

    Please stop. Evolution is science, and nothing you posit as an alternative is anything other than wishful thinking of long dismissed and disproven hypotheses.

  71. Christopher R Weiss says:

    Start with NYU and Paul Chaikin.

    Next look at the work of Philipp Holliger in the UK.

    Start with these two and then look at others who verified their work.

  72. S B Gypsy says:

    Not off topic:

    The reason Texas is so important to the textbook debacle is because they are the biggest market in the nation, and as Texas goes, so goes the rest of the textbooks for the rest of the nation.

    These books are so expensive that they do not make different versions for different sections of the country. When my son was in middle school I tried to buy a social studies book for him. The school said it cost $250.00 – for ONE book, which was why there were only 35 books for 7 classes of 31 students (there were 4 in the library for all 200+ kids to do their homework.)

    Until all students receive a kindle on the first day of school, loaded with ebooks, Texas will decide what your kids get in their books.

  73. theot58 says:

    I am deadly serious.

    You cannot be serious when you infer that we are not allowed to ask such questions.

    Scoffing and sarcasm is a poor substitute for scientific evidence.

    What evidence is there, which proves (beyond reasonable doubt) that our great.….….…. Great grandfather was as self replicating molecule?

  74. theot58 says:

    I have scrutinized the website you recommend.
    My conclusion is that on the surface it seems credible but when you scrutinize it carefully and read the fine print – you will discover that it is promises much but deliver little.
    There are many ambit claims in the big print – but little/no delivery in the fine print.
    Typical evolutionists smoke and mirror trick.
    I challenge: Find and give us the link to the specific page which give credible evidence which proves Darwinian/Macro evolution.
    Don’t send us on rabbit trails which waste our time. If there are “mountains of evidence” supporting Darwinian/Macro evolution – then gives us the exact link. Please, I am keen to see it.

  75. Ninong says:

    “How do you explain the incredible complexity and design of DNA? Is it scientifically credible that it “made itself” ?”

    Of course it’s scientifically credible that DNA evolved into its present form. Haven’t you ever studied the evolution of DNA? It’s fundamental to the evolution of life.

  76. Ninong says:

    “Where did the information to build a brain, heart, lungs. Etc come from?”

    You can’t be serious? We have virtually nothing in common upon which to even begin an intelligent conversation. You obviously have absolutey no understanding of evolution at all. None!

    Your incredible lack of a basic understanding of the science that underpins all of modern research in the fields of medicine and pharmaceuticals is breathtaking. You would never in a million years be admitted to medical school.

  77. Ninong says:

    Hey, totally off topic: Carlos Danger received only 4.9% of the vote in the Democratc Primary for New York City mayor.

  78. theot58 says:

    I will move on when we stop deceiving trusting students in the science classroom by teaching them that Darwinian/Macro evolution is a scientific “fact”.

    I will move on when dogmatic evolutionists stop harassing anyone who challenges the dying Darwinian/Macro evolution myth.

    I will move on when academic freedom is preserved such that the scrutinity which is permitted in others areas of science is permitted in the area of origins and evolution.

    Consider a quotation from New Scientist magazine in an article “Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism’s limits” 03 February 2010

    “Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical.

    The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin’s account of evolution is hardly considered.

    Such dissent as there is often relies on theistic premises which Darwinists rightly say have no place in the evaluation of scientific theories. So onlookers are left with the impression that there is little or nothing about Darwin’s theory to which a scientific naturalist could reasonably object.

    The methodological scepticism that characterises most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic.”

  79. theot58 says:

    Which labs and which molecules are you referring to?
    Ambit claims does not make good science.

  80. theot58 says:

    I have carefully scrutinised that site – my conclusion:

    – It is big in style but low in substance.

    – it is smoke and mirrors – the big print makes big assertions and claims there is proof, but read the small print leaves you digusted that you have been conned. There is no clear complelling evidence supporting Darwinian/Macro evolution. It is basically BS.

    I have been hearing about the “mountains of evidence” proving Evolution for years; I though it was rock solid science.

    One day I started scrutinizing the so called “mountains of evidence” and to my utter disgust I found that it was actually mountains of cow dung.

    There are mountains of ambit claims in the big print but when I analysed the small print I discovered that I was conned.

    The deception starts with a vague and changing definition, if they don’t define what the word means than the evidence they provide does not have to prove anything in particular. (see link for details The evolutionists provide countless examples of micro evolution (adaptation) and INFER that this somehow proves Macro evolution (development of new body parts). This is typical “bait and switch” advertising.

    My investigation has been over 7 years and includes:
    – Scrutinizing The National Academy of Sciences, evolution books
    – Scrutinizing The Berkeley evolution website
    – Going through Darwin’s book “On the Origin of species” (twice)
    – Viewing countless debates (eg,


    Ask yourself; what evidence is there to prove that our great .….….…. Great grandfather was as self replicating molecule or simple cell?

    Where did the information to build a brain, heart, lungs. Etc come from?

  81. Bob Munck says:

    we have never observed natural forces creating programming data

    Actually, we have. I once wrote a table-driven scheduler for what later became IBM’s VM/370 operating system. It determined by its data structure how jobs and processes in the computer would share the processor. Inadvertently, I neglected to fill in the data in the table; it contained only the random bit values created by power fluctuations, gamma rays, etc. The algorithm defined by this random collection of bits actually worked quite well; it was several weeks before we realized that the internal workings of the CPU were entirely different from what we thought we had programmed it to do.

    Given that randomness can create useful information, accidentally as it were, it seems to me that the rest of your questions have been answered. As Howard Johnson said at a meeting of the Rock Ridge town council: ‘Y’know, Nietzsche says: “Out of chaos comes order.”

  82. theot58 says:

    You can play word games or you can speak clarity.

    Are you suggesting that students should be prohibited from exploring the scientific evidnence which indentifies design and hence infers a designer?

    How do you explain the incredible complexity and design of DNA? Is it scientifically credible that it “made itself” ?

    Consider just a small number of fundamental scientific problems with Darwinian/Macro evolution

    1) Where did the information come from to build the DNA molecule?
    – it contains over 4 Gigabits of programming data; we have never observed natural forces creating programming data
    – a building is proof of a builder, a program is proof of a programmer, a design is proof of a designer

    2) How did genders “evolve” from asexual organisms?
    – Consider some of the challenges, have a look at this video

    3) How do you explain symbiotic relationships while holding to gradual “evolution”?
    – eg. The bees need the flowers, the flowers need the bees – they both MUST exist together, how could this occur slowly or gradually
    – What came first the Chicken or the egg?

    4) Where are all the myriad of transition fossils that Darwin predicted?
    – They were missing then and they are missing now.
    – How can the Cambrian explosion of millions of fully formed organism appearing abruptly be explained by Evolution?

    5) Which “evolved” first, the vagina or the penis?
    – how did one “evolve” from the other?

  83. BeccaM says:

    I’m pretty sure it was removed due to your complaint. After a while, he was back to no avatar.

  84. BeccaM says:

    No such luck.

  85. BeccaM says:

    Your ignorance and lack of education aren’t our problem. Nobody owes you answers.

  86. theot58 says:

    ttechsan you make excellent points – be prepared for a barrage of attacks by dogmatic evolutionists.

    Darwinian/Macro evolution makes no scientific sense but it is pushed as scientific fact anyway.

    The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion – this is baloney!

    The real battle is between good science and Darwinism. When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it crumbles.

    The scientific method demands: observation, measurement, repeatability. Darwinian/Macro evolution has none of these, all it has is circumstantial evidence which is open to interpretation. Ask yourself: What evidence is there that our great …. Great grandfather was a self replicating molecule?

  87. Ninong says:

    Oh, he was fun. Let’s invite him back. LOL

  88. Ninong says:

    Yes, everybody on this forum knows that Creation Science is not a science at all but that’s the name used in the media to describe that religious belief. Maybe Creationism would be a better term? You have to call it something so that all the Creation Science/Intelligent Design trolls will receive the automatic alert and flock to this forum to post for the first time. It does drive traffic. LOL

  89. Ninong says:

    They have a new wrinkle on the original theory that since they didn’t know what made the sun rise every morning, then god did it. Now that they know what makes the sun rise — something they learned only a few hundred years ago — they now concentrate their theology on the wonderful complexity of the world around them. Since they don’t understand exactly how everything works, they say it proves “Intelligent Design.”
    So if the human eye is too complex for them to understand how it evolved naturally, then God did it and not the evil evolution.

    P.S. — By the way, it was only a couple decades ago that Pope John Paul II extended a “solemn pardon” to Galileo for that nasty trial and house arrest for the rest of his life. Not actually an apology, but a nice pontifical pardon. Whatever. I guess it took them a few hundred years to make certain he was right about the Earth actually moving (contrary to the Bible) and moving around the Sun. And all that time they thought the Earth was the center of the universe. Well, in 1992 they finally agreed that Galileo was right all along, so they extended a “solemn pardon.”

  90. Ninong says:

    There is no such thing as a “devout” atheist, and atheist need not be capitalized. Why should anyone be concerned about what someone with absolutely no academic background in any of the physical sciences has to say about evolution? Anthony Flew, the son of Methodist minister/theologian Robert Flew, achieved a first class degree in Literae Humaniores at St. John’s College, Oxford. He was a lecturer in philosophy at Christ Church, Oxford. Afterwards he was a lecturer at the University of Aberdeen and then a professor of philosophy at two other universities.

    In 2004, at the age of 81, Flew informed a friend that he was considering becoming a deist. He made the distinction between what he described as a First Cause God (e.g., the god of Aristotle) and the Christian God. He said he arrived at that decision because of his inability to come up with a theory of the origin of DNA and the first reproducing species. Well, it’s too bad Professor of Philosophy Flew did not acquaint himself with the latest science on the origin of RNA.

    He died in April 2010 while being nursed in an Extended Care Facility in Reading, England, suffering from dementia.

  91. karmanot says:

    Thanks. It didn’t look right. Spell check must die!

  92. karmanot says:

    “Still waiting for my answers and examples” Still outstanding in your field I see.

  93. Ninong says:

    Human eyes, in fact all vertebrate eyes, are not designed as well as cephalopod eyes. In our eyes, the nerve fibers route before the retina, blocking some light and creating a blind spot where the fibers pass through the retina and out of the eyes. Not a very “intelligent” design.
    In cephalopod eyes, the nerve fibers route behind the retina, and do not block light or disrupt the retina. A much more “intelligent” design. Unlike a human eye, a cephalopod eye is focused through movement, much like the lens of a camera or telescope, rather than changing shape as the lens in the human eye does. The cephalopod eye is approximately spherical, as is the lens, which is fully internal.

    Most cephalopods possess complex extraocular muscle systems that allow for very fine control over the gross positioning of the eyes. Octopuses possess an automatic response that maintains the orientation of the pupils such that they are always horizontal. Not only that, squid and octopuses, and potentially cuttlefish, have eyes that distinguish the orientation of polarized light.

    If our eyes were more intelligently designed, we wouldn’t have a blind spot, but that’s not the evolutionary path we followed, so we do have a blind spot. And before you get started on how could such a complex system as the eye devolope by evolution, let me tell you that I can show you numerous examples from marine life of eyes at virtually every stage of development. In fact, an eye can develope where no eye existed before in only several thousand generations. You start with just cells on the skin reacting to light and nerve fibers developing in reaction to that light and within a few thousand years you have a rudimentary eye that evolves from there.

  94. Indigo says:

    I’m glad to see someone caught that. There’s no such thing as a “religious theory.” “Religious dogma,” perhaps or (my favorite) “religious mythology” or even “religious belief” but theory . . . no. Theory is a function of a systematic and measurable science with reproducible results.

  95. Ninong says:

    He probably attended Liberty or Regent or Bob Jones.

  96. Naja pallida says:

    That’s just it, other countries don’t avoid teaching religion. Pretty much any extensive school curriculum around the world will offer some kind of course in religion. Most just do it in an appropriate context, and don’t force it on students as an alternative to science. Our problem isn’t that religion is taught, it’s that critical thinking and basic reasoning skills are not taught. In the civilized world schools let biology classes teach biology, and let religion classes teach religion, and teach the students how to make up their own damn minds as to what they want to believe in. The American penchant for forced ignorance is what makes us idiots, not religion by itself.

  97. Christopher R Weiss says:

    Human chromosome #2 is a perfect example of DNA “adding information.” It is a merged chromosome down to the predicted and identifiable merge point. This was one of the critical mutations that allowed humans to branch off from the common ancestor of all great apes alive today.

    How about horizontal gene transfer?

    How about gene doubling that leads to longer and longer protein chains? This is how things like enzymes and blood clotting factors developed.

    You are clueless. Simple sexual reproduction and recombination creates mutations and new DNA information almost constant.

  98. Buford says:

    “And at least one reviewer wanted a special section devoted to “creation science,” suggesting of course that a religious theory is actual science”.

    Creation science is not a theory at all, per the scientific definition of a theory. You inadvertently gave creationism more credibility that it deserves with that typo.

  99. Christopher R Weiss says:

    I am not giving up. The price of freedom means that progress in tearing down these extremists take a very long time.

  100. Christopher R Weiss says:

    The make up of species on the planet has changed over time. Pre-cambrian there were no animals with hard skeletons. During the cambrian and devonian periods there were no mammals, etc. There are more extinct species than living species today.

    You couldn’t be more wrong.

  101. Christopher R Weiss says:

    See my post below about animals in transition. We have fish becoming amphibians, reptiles becoming mammals, etc. You couldn’t be more wrong.

  102. Christopher R Weiss says:

    How about some living animals in “transition?”

    Mud skippers are between fish and amphibians. They walk on land with lobe fins, they have high set eyes like, they breath air.

    East African Skinks have mutated to the point where they no longer lay eggs. In fact, one species has developed a placental structure identical to mammals.

    Monotremes are egg laying mammals whose internal morphology is closer to reptiles than other mammals.

    I could go on and on if you would like, but your claims are disproven with almost no effort.

  103. Christopher R Weiss says:

    Several labs have produced models and working versions of self-replicating molecules. Sorry… DNA didn’t have to appear fully formed to emerge and evolve. You are still wrong.

  104. Christopher R Weiss says:

    Please Theo -> share with the group your totally bizarre and unscientific Young earth creationism.

    Explain starlight from millions of light years away.

    Explain the layers of the earth which show millions of years of flow and movement.

    Explain the dispersal of land animals between continents that were not connected after the great flood.

    Explain the differences in Australian animals compared to the rest of the world if all animals dispersed from the same Ark.

    You have copied and pasted this same crap a hundred times or more. Please move on.

  105. Bob Munck says:

    my two Masters, with High Honors

    What subjects? How long ago? How much math do you know? How much physics? How much chemistry? How many peer-reviewed papers have you published in scientific journals? How many years of calculus have you had?

  106. Christopher R Weiss says:

    Look at the NYU research on self-replicating molecules. Perfect counterexample.

    The human body is full of unintelligent design through evolutionary re-purposing and adaption. For example:

    – The sinuses are angled incorrectly for an animal who stands upright.
    – Our spine is not intended to support an upright gate due to the way it compresses
    – Our cranial nerves loop down and up the neck, while the layout is straight in animals without necks such as fish
    – Our cardiovascular system is asymmetrical and loops up and over on the pulmonary side.

    No one would “design” a body from the ground up with these kinds of flaws.

  107. Bob Munck says:

    Lets see the faces on Mt. Rushmore happened by Random Natural selection of wind by random chance

    The Old Man of the Mountain up in New Hampshire did. My grandfather worked on Rushmore.

  108. Christopher R Weiss says:

    What about crystals? No designer there. What about the atom itself? No designer there. What about the the quantum particle?

    Maybe you should look up the programming techniques genetic programming and genetic algorithms. Both methods are used to design incredibly complex solutions to problems in ways humans would never think of using mutation and selection just like in biological evolution. For example, Koza holds patents for some of the best digital to analog filters and he designed these with genetic programming. The same mechanisms of mutation and selection produced actual working circuits with no intelligent design or human interference beyond setting up the program.

    Your assumptions could not be more wrong.

    Some amazing experiments you can observe and duplicate if you so wish:

    – Radcliffe’s experiments driving yeast to become mult-cellular organisms.
    – NYU’s recent research on self-replicating molecules.
    – Endler’s experiment’s with guppies
    – Lenski’s long running experiments with E. coli.

    You see… all of the mechanisms and processes of evolution can be demonstrated in real time with real science.

    You are just another reality denying fanatic.

  109. Bob Munck says:

    explain how devout Atheist Anthony Flew was convinced by Complexity of Design that there must be a God behind creation and wrote a book refuting his previous atheism.

    It’s very simple: he got old. Since he had no training in science and had always been right-wing, it was easy for someone else to write the book and have him claim it represented his ideas.

    NO examples of Design w/o Designer

    Sure there are. Follow this link to see some amazing, complex, beautiful designs:

    Nice, huh? Yet we know exactly how they came to be, can write computer programs that assume nothing but basic laws of physics and chemistry to create them.

  110. mike31c says:

    No wonder most of the world thinks Americans are idiots… It’s because of stupid “educational” materials coming out of hillbilly states like Texas!

  111. Peter says:

    Just picking a nit here, but that is a Ouija Board, for future reference.

  112. Peter says:

    This sort of comment always amazes me, early man did not know what made the sun rise every morning, so god did it, and every time, new data is discovered that explains the previously unknown. So now we come to evolution, so the obvious answer is that, of course, god did it.

    The only thing this approach does is take the unknown and attribute it to a god doing something because the data is limited. Now I will come to the ultimate point, that being, who made god? Their answer, god always was, but that answer is completely lacking in any intelligence, if god always was, then why can we not accept that ???? always was.

    Just like conservatives feeding off their own lies, repeat it often enough and it assumes truth.

  113. karmanot says:

    I think it’s a Corgi. Bodhi Dog had to come home because a wicked witch stole him yesterday, but will be back soon with a new gravatar. :-)

  114. karmanot says:

    But, but, he has two Masters: One in Macrame that ties all loose Biblical ends together in a coherent whole and one on the relevance of the Tower of Babel on the lexicon of mythology in the Old Testament.

  115. karmanot says:

    Maybe he’s using a Wiji board.

  116. karmanot says:

    “I won’t be back” Is that a promise?

  117. karmanot says:

    True, Mr. nuts is ‘creating’ a ruckus.

  118. karmanot says:

    Oh boy………

  119. ttechsan says:

    Still waiting for my answers and examples I gave long ago which I don’t expect you to be able to give since you can’t. BTW explain how devout Atheist Anthony Flew was convinced by Complexity of Design that there must be a God behind creation and wrote a book refuting his previous atheism. He did this until science discovered so much he finally realized only God could do that not evolution. The more we discover, esp genome project etc the more evol can’t explain how evol could have done it.
    NO examples of Design w/o Designer and Computer Program w/o Computer Programmer? Why not evol claims to have done it. So surely they must be everywhere to be seen, one w/o the other.

  120. Lou Alexander says:

    I live in a zip code were there are way more Skihs than Baptist so I figure that if they are going to teach the Christian creation myth as science they gotta do the same with the Sikh creation myth.

  121. Ninong says:

    Maybe John’s crticism of the Texas State Board of Education’s textbook review committee caused an action alert to be sent out to all members? Either that or maybe they’re from the RNC’s Platform Drafting Committee?

  122. Monoceros Forth says:

    It’s bizarre to me how worked up people get in defence of creationism. Look out our troll here, raining down angry missives every few minutes: this has really got his blood up. It’s hard to imagine he’d be even half so voluble or vehement if he’d just been told his mother died. The violence of the emotional response is just weird to me.

  123. Ninong says:

    The I.D. trolls are out in force this evening. LOL

  124. Ninong says:

    “2nd Law of Thermodynamics is we go from order to disorder or from to make it easy like you used it best to worst is all cases.” — ttechsan

    WTF? I’m still trying to figure out what you tried to say there. Obviously English is not your first language, or your second.

    1. The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because

    – the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.

    – entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).

    – even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.

    In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

    2. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

    Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

    3. Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.

    4. Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.

  125. ttechsan says:

    Have they started grading this like thesis and papers in college? I didn’t think so. I got my points across and yet have any of you disproven my points scientifically and shown me Design w/o a Designer or Computer Program w/o a Programmer. You would never find a computer program w/o knowing it had intelligence behind it. Yet you want to believe DNA computer program that is so complex happened w/o intelligence and by random chance by nat selection over billions of yrs. Ok so lets have a explosion in a printing factory, like my Dad owned, which prints a book after the explosion. Not possible but you buy evolution and DNA RNA is. OOOK then.

  126. Ninong says:


    Apparently you said the “magic word” in your title to this article: “creationism.” It seems to be having the same effect as when you say “Mormon” in any title.

    Now if you could only go back and somehow work in the word “Mormon,” we would be able to get the Intlelligent Design people debating the Mormons on polygamy or something. Add Ann Frank’s name, too. That has always worked in the past.

  127. ttechsan says:

    Your science arguments are so weak. Thanks for your point of I’m not what I was at birth. That further proves my point in multiple ways. I[‘m still human. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is we go from order to disorder or from to make it easy like you used it best to worst is all cases. For evolution to work it must go backwards for science on Law of Thermodynamics and go from worse to better. That doesn’t occur as our bodies show. We peak in twenties and go down. Evol takes too much times so going down so can’t evolve that quickly. Hmmm. Btw don’t try open and closed system argument as that has no bearing either on this argument. I’m still waiting for your science disproving my examples etc. You still can’t do it and it’s great you proved by accident my point even further. Thanks for the help. Now you used your logic and find evol can’t work! Good job.

  128. Ninong says:

    University of California, Berkeley — Evolution 101:

  129. Monoceros Forth says:

    Is there some reason you couldn’t consolidate your words into a single post? If you want to come across as an incoherent, sputtering moron who can’t marshal his thoughts for long enough to compose even two cohesive paragraphs at a stretch, you’re going the right way about it. Otherwise I suggest you either use the editing function or you take a few deep breaths before spraying multiple helpings of semiliterate twaddle all over this forum.

  130. Ninong says:

    For anyone seriously interested in evolution, I recommend the University of California Berkeley’s excellent online resources. Just try and then look up whatever animal you’re particularly interested in. For example, I was always internest in how mammals, that evolved on land, became marine mammals, such as dolphins and whales.

    Check out Berkeley’s chart on whale evolution:

    Caution: The above recommendation is for people who are not already completely insane. May be harmful to your health if you believe in Special Creation, Creation Science, Creationism, Intelligent Design, or any of the other belief systems based on fairytales.

  131. theot58 says:

    This article, like many others, PRESUME that Darwinian/macro evolution is a “fact” without actually scrutinizing the evidence. Presumptions like these are very dangerous to genuine science.

    “Evolution” is a vague word. The main definitions in the text books are:
    1) “change over time”, this is silly as it is stating the flaming obvious.
    2) Micro evolution is minor changes within a species, this is real and observable and uncontested.
    3) Darwinian/Macro evolution (where the conflict is) which asserts that:
    a) All living things had a common ancestor. This implies that your great….. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule.
    b) The observable world has come into existence by totally natural, unguided processes and specifically WITHOUT the involvement of an intelligent designer.
    Have a look at this link for details

    The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion – this is baloney!

    The real battle is between good science and Darwinism. When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it crumbles.

    The scientific method demands: observation, measurement, repeatability. Darwinian/Macro evolution has none of these, all it has is circumstantial evidence which is open to interpretation. Ask yourself: What evidence is there that our great …. Great grandfather was a self replicating molecule?

    I have been hearing about the “mountains of evidence” proving Evolution for years; I though it was rock solid science.

    One day I started scrutinizing the so called “mountains of evidence” and to my utter disgust I found that it was actually mountains of cow dung.

    There are mountains of ambit claims in the big print but when I analysed the small print I discovered that I was conned.

    The deception starts with a vague and changing definition, if they don’t define what the word means than the evidence they provide does not have to prove anything in particular. (see link for details The evolutionists provide countless examples of micro evolution (adaptation) and INFER that this somehow proves Macro evolution (development of new body parts). This is typical “bait and switch” advertising.

    My investigation has been over 7 years and includes:
    – Scrutinizing The National Academy of Sciences, evolution books
    – Scrutinizing The Berkeley evolution website
    – Going through Darwin’s book “On the Origin of species” (twice)
    – Viewing countless debates (eg,

    Ask yourself; what evidence is there to prove that our great .….….…. Great grandfather was as self replicating molecule or simple cell?

    Where did the information to build a brain, heart, lungs. Etc come from?

  132. KingCranky says:

    Here’s an example of evolution I defy you to even try and debunk.

    You’re not the same, physically, now as you were at birth.

    And take your own advice about “analytical thought” when pushing anti-evolution claptrap.