Document text
http:// --> Ashland, Oregon HOME Valley & State Sports Nation & World Opinion/Editorial Classifieds Business Columnists Obituaries Weather Archive Hot Topics Forum Photo Gallery Past Readers Polls Revels Etcetera Backpage O-Zone Special Sections Real Estate Guide Menu Guide Shakespeare Subscribe Contact Us Rate Card Place an Ad Online Games Movie Preview October 3, 2006 Evolution vs Intelligence: the secular jihad FTRS Archives Tuesday August 29th Tuesday September 5th Tuesday September 12th Tuesday September 19th Tuesday September 26th Tuesday October 3rd Tuesday October 10th Tuesday October 17th By Mike Green Make a comment at the end and then join us in the FORUM for dialogue Science is considered to be a lover of truth, and a believer in only that which it can see, touch, manipulate, duplicate and prove. Since science is ever evolving, so is the field containing the theories that it believes to be true — given that its technological advances provide a greater awareness of that which already exists. Therefore, not only must science refrain from belief in God — since God can neither be manipulated nor measured — it must also refrain from straying into any other field of belief that it cannot duly prove is absolutely true. In essence, the knowledge inherent in the industry of scientific research (and its credibility) is limited by a fundamental approach that scientists have established as a rule for the entire industry. A question of credibility Given the fact that science proclaims only that which it knows to be true and shuns that which is postulated by prognosticators and prophets, it is a bit distressing that science has placed its entire credibility on the line with the incredible story of evolution. This is not to say that man should ignore evidence existing within our environment that provides insight into how organisms operate and evolve, but rather that such investigation should not be over-reached with false prognostications and proclamations that cannot be supported with legitimate proof. Once scientists and their blind followers step outside of the prescribed methodology they have created as a standard of proof for all accepted theories within their own realm, such allegiance essentially becomes a faith in a process conjured up and sold by a man. Unfortunately, the scientific world has done exactly that in a zealous (and perhaps jealous?) effort to undermine belief in Christianity and replace it with belief in the doctrine of evolution. Thus, scientists who seek to influence man to believe in the Charles Darwin Theory of Evolution do so by manipulating the audience, evolving the theory, and casting aspersions on the proof that counters such a postulate. Let's take a deeper look. The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) shores up the foundation upon which all legitimate science is supposed to be taught in American classrooms. It states: "Science is a method of explaining the natural world. It assumes that anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Science also assumes that the universe operates according to regularities that can be discovered and understood through scientific investigations. The testing of various explanations of natural phenomena for their consistency with empirical data is an essential part of the methodology of science. Explanations that are not consistent with empirical evidence or cannot be tested empirically are not a part of science." The problem that science has run into is that it has become its own worst enemy. Though adhering to strict rules of scientific protocol in every method of approach to nearly every other realm of research, it has abandoned that same protocol when examining the Theory of Evolution. Thus, it relies upon the sale of snake oil in its effort to convince the public that Charles Darwin was the genius scientists proclaim him to be. And the scientific world's purported love of facts and adherence to only that which it can prove, has been defenestrated. Science has lost its mind To prove science is off its rocker, one doesn't need to prove the existence of God at all. We need not draw Moses, the prophets, or even Jesus into this argument in order to put the folly of evolution science on display. The scientific world itself has given us all the proof we need to prove the point. Consider the notion being promoted today that the entire world of science is in agreement regarding the facts presented by evolution. If one could find even one legitimate source within the world of science that does not agree, then surely the entire premise that all scientists agree is false. We begin by inspecting a small crack in the armor of evolution defenders. Consider the following statement endorsing ambiguity written by Joel B. Hagen (leading professor in the field of biology at Radford University) in the History of Science Society Newsletter (Vol. 29 No. 4): "Students expect science classes to be about "facts," and both students and teachers often feel uncomfortable faced with situations where there are no clear-cut right and wrong answers. Successfully using these historical case studies has required training in teaching techniques that even some sympathetic teachers find foreign. Accepting ambiguity, considering alternative interpretations, and critically evaluating evidence are important intellectual skills, but not ones that most teachers employ very often in introductory biology classrooms." Hagen's lofty view of ambiguity is understandable, given that he considered Darwin's book, " On the Origin of the Species " ambiguous and in need of further scientific evidence. In addition, H.B.D. Kettlewell, another scientist whose infamous peppered moth experiments (designed to demonstrate Darwin's Natural Selection theory) was found lacking in scientific protocol, underscored the notion widely perceived in the scientific world that Darwin's book merely offered circumstantial evidence in dire need of support. Is the entire scientific world ready to admit that it has staked its reputation on a book that it considers ambiguous and incomplete? Surely, biological science isn't based on the promotion of hearsay, is it? Where is the empirical data to support the premise that Darwin posed factual unchangeable, replicable evidence? It would appear that the truth also evolves within Darwin's evolutionary construct. Well, according to at least two top-tier scientists in the field of evolution (both who revered Darwin) the data that led Darwin to declare the Origin of the Species to the world was at best ambiguous and circumstantial. Perhaps in the scientific world, that's enough to promote the notion that all scientists agree regarding the Theory of Evolution. But the question for the rest of us who haven't conducted the rigorous experiments necessary to achieve a level of ambiguous acceptance in the scientific community is, what is the hubbub over this ambiguous, circumstantial theory? (Warning! In this next paragraph, you will encounter "Scientese" — the language of babbling on over the heads of most people about something no one cares anything about. Please persevere.) The Evolution of a Theory In the beginning — we know there is a beginning because of Albert Einstein, who's Theory of Relativity was used to eventually prove that time and space were relative rather than fixed. Astronomer Willem De Sitter used Einstein's Theory, a few years after it was published, to make a major discovery that the universe was finite and therefore could be measured. A book entitled, "It's about Time," by physicist Paul Davies, explains how this theory is used to determine what science calls "space-time" — as a single hyphenated word since both are relative to one another; and when we speak of space we speak of time and vice versa. The theory that space is finite — and time, which relative to space also must be finite — proposes the notion that the universe has a beginning. And if a finite thing has a beginning, it must indeed also have an end. Science has now come to believe that the universe has both a beginning and an end. Congratulations science. You've now come to agree with Moses. But that's a good thing. However, since it took several thousands of years for science to come to a point where it agrees with a tiny portion of the Torah, perhaps it may take an equal amount of time before it reaches a place where it will agree with Jesus? Surely the resistance science is putting on display undermines its ability to produce a credible debate on the issue. But even Einstein, in his finite wisdom, discovered in later years that indeed this magnificent creation upon which we live has a Creator with infinite wisdom. The Theory of Insanity In an effort to maintain a comfortable level of understanding (no more Scientese), the basic scientific Theory of Evolution is presented below as simply as possible without undue explanation or hyperbole. In a nutshell, some scientists believe that all living organisms evolved from a single cell that came into existence from nothing. This single cell then proceeded to evolve over an unknown period of finite time (that no scientist has established) into the many thousands of varied species of plants, mammals, amphibians, insects and birds that exist today. Oh, and the many variations of men and women also evolved from the very same cell. That was quite a cell (sell). This story would be most incredible as it were. But science didn't leave it there. Since the theory begins with a huge flaw — in that it opposes the scientific law of physics (something appears from nothing for no apparent reason) — scientists had to accommodate for how the universe itself was formed in order that an organism of unknown origin could suddenly come into existence and then multiply itself into everything we see today. BANG! And science had a theory In the beginning, there was nothing according to science. Then, without warning (since there was nothing to warn nor anything to provide the warning), something that did not exist exploded. "But wait!" you say. "If there was nothing, and then something exploded, then that means there was something. Where did that something come from?" Good question; perhaps one that a scientist can answer. Moving on ... Something from nothing equals a theory Science goes on to say that this big explosion formed all the galaxies, including the one in which our earth is held captive by the laws of physics, which maintain the orbital paths of the planets, moons and stars. All the laws of physics apparently came into being at the moment of the explosion by something that was once nothing. It therefore appears as though the laws of physics are not impacted by evolution, and exist as they have always existed since the time of the explosion by something that was once nothing, which occurred over billions of years ago (give or take a few billion years of your choice). Additionally, the theory rests upon the notion that the earth's proximity to the sun (a dying star) produced just the right climate necessary for organic life, which was produced from a single cell that magically appeared at the precise moment that our sun had lost enough of its blue heat (science says that stars begin at blue, and as they lose heat then turn yellow, red and eventually die €¦ creating a black hole in space where all light and everything else gets sucked in like a giant vacuum cleaner). Scientific joke Of course, some scientists get around all of the preposterous postulates presented under the guise of a fact-based theory by explaining that Darwin's Theory isn't proposed as fact, but rather one theory of many to be explored. Well, excuse me, but I believe I just explored it and have found it lacking in evidence to such a degree that it can only be presented as something by which faith is essential to the foundation. In other words, I discovered through a scientific objective approach — using the scientific world's own stated standards regarding the need for empirical data — that the scientific Theory of Evolution isn't scientific at all. It is a faith seeking religious followers. Therefore, given that science lacks all credibility on the issue of its own Theory of Evolution, but pushes the theory as indeed factual information that must be studied and absorbed by every student in every classroom in every government school, it can only be surmised that the scientific world has leaped into the world of religion and posed its own belief system. Even today, evolution science makes the disingenuous claim to be above the fray that battles over beliefs. Instead, it sets itself up as the lofty arbiter of all truth. Indeed, evolution science is a liar. Stupefying students Students are easy targets because most are ill prepared to ask essential questions that completely unravel the faith that scientists place in the prophet Darwin. Instead of defending the Theory of Evolution as complete proven fact, based upon evidence that can be replicated, scientists address Evolution skeptics by attacking religion. The position postured by many defenders of evolution in the press proposes that polls tends to show most believers in creationism lack a high school education. Such a response lacks any insight into the core understanding of Christian belief, but rather lashes out at the believers in like manner to an elementary student opening a debate by stating he is in a higher grade than his opponent. And this is why we see the Evolution versus Intelligent Design war. Contrary to popular belief — as spread by the well-educated evolutionists — Christians seeking to overturn an accepted biological science didn't initiate the war in public schools (as the some would have us believe). The government did. Indeed, the same illusion is presented to the American people in the so-called War on Terror. The government established the notion that the war began on September 11, 2001, when Americans witnessed an attack on our mainland for the first time. In fact, the war was initiated by the U.S. in the Middle East, and was more than 10 years old by the time Americans at home were impacted. The public had little knowledge of the decisions and actions of our rulers in foreign nations. Thus, we immediately embraced the idea that we were innocent victims of an attack for no apparent reason. But I digress. Before evolution there was God; after evolution there was government Before evolution entered the public schools and the bible was given a swift kick out of the classroom (yet remained in the courtroom, congress and the state legislatures), the notion that the entire universe is the handiwork of a Master Craftsman was the accepted version of the story for as long as public schools were in existence. No one knew the exact age of the earth or the universe itself — and no one laid claim to having this knowledge. The Evolutionists started the battle for the minds of American students with an initial loss. John T. Scopes was convicted in Tennessee of violating the law prohibiting the teaching of evolution when he introduced information from Hunter's Civic Biology textbook (1914) into his science classes. Page 194 from the textbook introduces Darwin as the "great English Scientist" under the heading of "The Doctrine of Evolution." Under that section of the book, the earth's age is touted as "millions of years" old. The source given for the ambiguous age is "Geology." "Geology teaches that millions of years ago, life on the earth was very simple, and gradually more and more complex forms of life appeared ..." The Supreme Court eventually overturned Scopes' conviction due to a technical breach in court processes (the judge, rather than the jury, levied the fine against Scopes). The law, however, remained intact. The Supreme Court wrote: "We are not able to see how the prohibition of teaching the theory that man has descended from a lower order of animals gives preference to any religious establishment or mode of worship. So far as we know, there is no religious establishment or organized body that has in its creed or confession of faith any article denying or affirming such a theory." Scopes v. State 289 S.W. 363, 367 (Tenn. 1927) This position of the court would not stand. Where the Court could not see how the state's prohibition gave any preference to any religious establishment in 1927, it would have seemingly miraculously improved vision 40 years later. The Evolutionists were determined to provide the court with new reading glasses and alter the course of teaching in public schools — not solely to include the teaching of evolution, but rather to supplant the teaching of creationism and ensure its exclusion. As the Court is prone to do, with changes in its roster come changes in its interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution's basic statement that Congress isn't allowed to pass a law respecting the establishment of religion somehow was interpreted to include state legislatures, school boards and any other governmental body outside of "congress" (which is the only governmental body specifically stated by the constitution to be restricted under the First Amendment's mandated prohibition). Despite the fact that Americans revere the Constitution and its Founding Fathers, today there is an inescapable condemnation of the writers' clear intent to allow Christian teaching in public schools. Obviously, the Founding Fathers were aware of religious teaching in public schools and government institutions (such as congress itself) at the time of the formation of the nation's highest law. And for many generations the vision of the founders remained a part of the foundation of instruction in schools. But in the 20th century a full onslaught was launched to reinterpret the constitution in favor of those opposing religious precepts. Nevertheless, it is readily apparent the Founding Father's interpretation of their own writing was to tie the hands of federal lawmakers, while at the same time protecting the freedom of teaching and practicing religion in America, even in the public institutions. Equally apparent, was the hostile intentions of those who waged war against the Creator. Arkansas was the first state to fall prey to the new interpretation of the constitution in Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 (1968). That opened the door for Evolutionists to have their theory taught. But they would soon kick the door wide open, stride into the classroom and boot creationism out the window. Louisiana became the next victim. In the case of Edwards v. Aguillard 482 U.S. 578 (1987), the Supreme Court would rule the state's requirement to teach creation science was unconstitutional, claiming the law was intended to advance a particular religion. Although the constitution clearly indicates it is a document restricting the powers of the federal government and whatever isn't contained in that document is left up to the states, the Court overturned Louisiana's state law based upon a prohibition in the constitution directed solely at a federal legislative body. The Court slammed shut the window through which the Bible was tossed out when it specified that only secularist theories (true or not) could be taught in government schools. It wrote: "... teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction." Once the U.S. government got involved in the education of American children, it determined through court battles and secret negotiations with textbook publishers, that American children must not be taught the assumed insidious mindset of religion (any religion), which it regarded (ironically) as the core catalyst of irrational violence throughout the world. Instead, science created its own religion and prescribed faith to it while the courts mandated its instruction in the classroom. In essence, public school biology classrooms became the worship center for secular ideology. To ensure the sanctity and preservation of this secular mandate, the Court also made this statement in Edwards v. Aguillard: "The Establishment Clause forbids the enactment of any law 'respecting an establishment of religion.' The Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause. First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a secular purpose. Second, the statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion. State action violates the Establishment Clause if it fails to satisfy any of these prongs." Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, in its finite wisdom, falsely proclaimed the initial premise was that the constitution prohibited the enactment of any law respecting an establishment of religion. No educational degree is needed to read the word "Congress." The statement by the court clearly ignored the first word of the First Amendment, and the very subject of the so-called "Establishment Clause," which clearly is directed at congress and no other legislative body — assuming the Founding Fathers were not idiots and were aware that the states had legislative bodies of their own. In this manner the government, through a handful of interpreters on the Supreme Court, placed the Theory of Evolution at the top of the heap of every belief system in America, as the preeminent fact of how all life began in the world. All rise: judge Hypocrisy presiding In an effort to protect the fragile evolution story from skeptics and naysayers, the government established a hypocritical judicial process that prevented religious groups from declaring the Theory of Evolution a faith-based study equivalent to any other faith-based study. Thus, the courts determined that the Theory of Evolution — which is equally as offensive to millions of Christians as the bible was offensive to the handful of secularists who challenged biblical teachings in schools and won in the courts — was not subject to religious criticism since it was a secular science-based theory. Thus, we see how science could not win the popular vote of the people on its own merits, so it used the power of the court to force-feed its preposterous faith to a religious populace. The government challenged the accepted faith of Jews and Christians by juxtaposing God with Darwin. And when the people chose God, the government courts ruled the people were wrong. Secular Jihad : government faith versus Christianity But the government seems unaware that it has declared war on Christians, perhaps because this secular entity derides religious precepts with disdain, rather than attempting to understand why it continued to lose intellectual arguments to faith-based concepts for more than 160 years. Indeed, in order for Judeo-Christians to embrace the faith of Darwinists, it is necessary to deny the words of Moses and Jesus Christ. Thus, the government has not simply claimed ownership of the truth, it has set itself up in opposition to the very foundation upon which Christianity is based. And it has proclaimed to the nation that the world-revered Jesus is a liar and the nonsensical ambiguous Darwin is the Truth, the Way and the understanding of all life. But there may be a method in the murky madness of the mean-spirited Evolutionists who could not stand for Christianity to remain in the schools even as an equal-but-separate curriculum. Indeed, evolutionists fancy their circumstantial ambiguous theory superior to the time-tested beliefs of Judaism and Christianity. Perhaps the vitriolic assault on Christian beliefs has to do with the notion that if Jesus is correct, certainly Darwin cannot be. And if one places all faith in Darwin, it is crucial that one discredit Jesus. Certainly with belief in Jesus one is relegated to a life of constant sacrifice, devotion, denial of numerous desires both natural and contrived, and the constant focus on expressing love to all, including one's enemies. The hope is in the promise that Jesus will save those who believe in Him when the final judgment is rendered, assuming that such an event is imminent. Such hope relies on faith in a life outside of this world and outside of the flesh beyond death. That faith begins with an understanding that all we see was not an accident. It was an intentional design by an all-powerful Creator. With an understanding of this Creator, we come to also understand our relationship to the Creator and the expectations inherent within that relationship. With faith in Darwin there are no morals, values, rules or religious protocols outside of whatever one makes up for oneself. Death is the final frontier from which no man can hope to escape. After death nothing exists (unless, of course, that "nothing" explodes into "something" again). Natural selection is the way of the world, as one middle school Nazi-era (1942) biology textbook in Germany proclaimed in a chapter mixed with messages from Adolph Hitler: He who wants to live must fight, and he who does not want to fight in this world of perpetual struggle does not deserve to live!" (Mein Kampf, p. 317) The instinctual state of the ants corresponds to the leadership state among mankind; however, the principles of a perfect insect state give people cause to think. They have preserved bees and ants in the struggle for survival and thereby proved their validity. We earlier noted the following truths about ants: 1. The work of the individual has only one purpose: to serve the whole group. 2. Major accomplishments are possible only by the division of labor. 3. Each bee risks its life without hesitation for the whole. 4. Individuals who are not useful or are harmful to the whole are eliminated. 5. The species is maintained by producing a large number of offspring. It is not difficult for us to see the application of these principles to mankind. The world does not exist for cowardly nations. (Mein Kampf, p. 105) A question of faith Some Darwinians prefer to look down their prestigious noses at religious peoples while pretending they do not subscribe to any belief at all. Such a position requires the Darwinian faithful to rely solely upon faith in ever-evolving scientific books and journals (most all of which most followers have never read), research that none of the masses have ever conducted, and theories created by one man whom most Evolution followers don't know much about — not to mention his ultimate theory in which they place all faith is considered to be ambiguous and circumstantial. Like most followers of virtually any religion, most Evolutionists do not ask probing questions. Their curiosity fails to rise to the level of skepticism of their own beliefs. Instead, they, like most followers of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions, prefer to gamble with the notion that the current level of knowledge about their religion is sufficient upon which to base complete faith. Certainly there are exceptions within each of these religions to the general rule of quiet, blind acceptance and obedience. Within Christianity for example, scholars and skeptics continue to this very day to probe the nuances of the faith — while the faith continues to endure through such microscopic analysis. One would expect such scrutiny of anything in which we place our entire faith, because the Truth can withstand any measure of analysis. Consequently, to this day Americans measure time on our calendars by counting the number of days, weeks and months from the birth of one of history's most revered and world renown teachers. His name is Jesus of Nazareth, not Darwin of Shrewsbury. I believe I will believe in myself In regard to the Theory of Evolution, it is difficult to believe that any studious individual approaching this presumed "science" from the objective rigors of scientific analysis would conclude that it passes the smell test in even the most lenient of scientific communities. There is no doubt that those who subscribe to Evolution as the explanation for all that we see, do so because they believe in something that cannot be proven as fact. Rather, it has provided enough of an explanation in order to attract followers who believe in its conclusions. That's faith, not science, according to the NSTA. Darwin himself concluded that he could not explain the origin of the universe even as he purported to explain the origin of the species. "I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems," Darwin said. "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic." Darwin, who believed in God much of his life and quoted often from the Bible, eventually grew to reject God after being unable to explain why so much evil existed in the world. If indeed he was a genius, I am lost in how to determine whether he was a genius when he had faith in God or became a genius when he decided that his own knowledge was sufficiently superior. Perhaps Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection was an attempt to explain what he did not understand. Or maybe he found some relevant information regarding how some species evolve in a limited environment on a limited scale, and broad-brushed all of creation with his elementary thesis? Still, even Darwin placed his faith somewhere, but it wasn't entirely himself, as he concluded that the beginning of all things remains a mystery. Thus, his Theory of Evolution, which has many followers today, remains a religion that requires faith in the analysis, explanations and ambiguous conclusions provided by one man. A religion by any other name is still a religion And in like fashion to the world's religions, Evolution seeks to explain the existing evidence of those things we see, feel, hear and experience, which clearly are the awesome wonders of an omnipotent Creator — or, in the case of Darwinians, the continuing chance occurrence of a single cell that miraculously evolved into a lion and a dandelion at the same time. The debate between Evolutionists and Intelligent Design folks may continue to rage, but as for me and my house, we already know the Truth. _________ Mike Green is the author of " The WHOLE Truth about the U.S. War on Terror: answers to every question you never knew to ask ." www.TheTruthAboutTerror.com Current Comments: 500 characters is not nearly enough to describe how incredibly dismayed I am to see the content editor at the Daily Tidings spouting such mindless, dishonest drivel such as this diatribe by Mike Green. I think you managed to spew virtually every creationist lie in the book. This is not journalism. This is judgmental self-righteous fundamentalism... no different in essence than the fundamentalism that fueled the hatred behind 9/11. Dennis Kambury - Ashland, Oregon - October 3rd, 10:28 PM Mr. Green knows very little about science except as it appears to him to intrude on his religious beliefs. Here is Mr. Green's description of science in a nutshell: Warning! In this next paragraph, you will encounter "Scientese" � the language of babbling on over the heads of most people about something no one cares anything about. Mr. Green is a frightened, poorly-educated man who responds with hatred towards things he does not understand. I think we could do better. Dana Zinsmeister - College Station, TX - October 4th, 7:32 AM I have scotch-taped two quarters to an index card, inserted it into an envelope and mailed it to the editor of the Ashland Daily Tidings with instructions to then forward the 50 cents to Mr. Greene who can then, we may only hope, call someone who has a clue. Lucien Dauberge - Waltham, MA - October 4th, 8:27 AM As a chemist/scientist, I know that "not all scientists" accept the evolution theory as fact. It is wrong for schools to teach evolution as FACT because the number of facts that exist do not explain the whole theory. This is an attempt of scientists, agnostics and atheists to "indoctrinate" our minds with scientific "NON-FACTS" to get acceptance of evolution theory as FACT. The "non-facts" confuse many Christians too, but they rationalize by saying they CAN believe both. Good article! Dixie Gossett - Hot Springs, AR - October 4th, 9:55 AM If you wish to critique the Theory of Evolution, you really should learn what this theory really is, and what scientists say is the evidence for this theory. What is really sad is that by portraying obvious falsehoods as truth and by potraying scientists as being opposed to the Word of God, some Christians convince people that Christianity is an outdated superstition. Jesus Christ would say that it would be better for you to be drowned in the depths of the ocean. David Leemon - Dubuque, Iowa - October 4th, 10:27 AM Mr. Green has just demonstrated that he knows very little about biology, science, and logic. I found this entire article laughable and devoid of value. If you want to beat a dead horse, at least bring good stick. Joe Menthol - Ashland, OR - October 4th, 11:31 AM As a non - believer, I don't feel that it's my place to defend the above. Still, the "Universe" is a mystical place and science at it's best embraces this... Last night my children and I prayed before dinner - not to someone in the sky but rather to take a civilized pause before satisfying our hunger and to remember a deep gratitude for what we have together. Also, what is it about writing these comments that gives licence to such rudeness? We don't want anyone to feel bad, do we ? Peace. Lear Grace - Ashland Oregon - October 4th, 1:13 PM It saddens me that rather than offer any specific factual objections (to a column replete with sources, quotes and facts), the critics of this column and of Mr. Green have resorted to name-calling ("frightened, poorly educated")and casting aspersions, based entirely on emotion. I find it notable that the one scientist that has responded, has applauded this article. Nice work! Emily - Medford, OR - October 4th, 1:22 PM Mr. Green says repeatedly that Darwin says all life originated from a single cell which in turn came from nothing. Darwin does not say this. Mr. Green expounds on a theory he knows nothing about. He refers to people who accept the theory of evolution through natural selection as insane mean-spirited vitriolic hypocritical jihadists with no morals or values of any kind. He is a frightened, poorly educated man. Dana Zinsmeister - College Station, TX - October 5th, 6:41 AM In the laboratory of American debate, it appears that those who maintain that science is the highest form of intellect can do little more than resort to emotional rancor and juvenile discourse. 500 words may indeed challenge one's ability to debate, but one may easily respond in the TIDINGS FORUM or perhaps in a letter to the editor. Unfortunately those who choose to play guerilla debate with ambush comments about me do nothing to bolster confidence in their position on science v. Creationism. Mike Green - Ashland, OR - October 5th, 6:51 AM Mr. Green, could you explicate further on what you mean by "guerilla debate with ambush comments"? I have signed my name and stated my position with a great deal more courtesy and charity than you have shown. You have stated that the theory of evolution is that all life evolved from a single cell. Could you point to where Darwin said this? I have read Darwin's work and I recall no such entry. Dana Zinsmeister - College Station, TX - October 5th, 7:34 AM Who cares about this editorial? This would be my reaction if it weren't for the constant attempt of the 'faithful' to foist their beliefs on others. Where comes this need? If you were secure in your beliefs you wouldn't be threatened by others, regardless of whether it were religion or science. So the 10% atheist and agnostics managed to join up with scientists and usurp Christianity? Hooray for the mighty! Green you didn't think when writing this and it's not worthy of more than 500 in response E - Ashland, OR - October 5th, 9:39 AM What people fail to realize is that evolution and creation are perfectly compatible concepts. Why could "God" not have created an evolutionary process? In fact, substitute some simple metaphors and Genesis 1 tells the scientifically accepted history of the Universe PERFECTLY. And Christianity isn't the only game in town; there appears to be plenty of commonality among creation stories around the world- too much to be mere coincidence. Taking a "A vs. B" stance is limiting and ignorant. A - Ashland, OR - October 5th, 9:58 AM A The two completely separate entities of science and faith need not interact at all if it weren't for missionaries such as Green. No need for unity or disunity. I don't propose teaching evolution in Church or putting alternate dogma in the Bible, why do we need alternate preaching in science class and teaching in biology text books? Green is confused with purpose. Science doesn't project 'Why' at all. Unlike faith Science projects 'How'. Faith is in big trouble if it ever tries to explain How. E - Ashland, OR - October 5th, 10:32 AM A On some level I agree with you but we are not there yet in either faith or science. However if God created evolution, then there lies the bigger question of who created God? Thus you have made the question even more difficult than just leaving science to science for the time being. Science needs to remain as pure as possible from missionaries and lobbyists. There is no 'truth' in science as Green claims and there is not the ambiguity Bush claims in global warming either. It is all manipulation E - Ashland, OR - October 5th, 11:10 AM Time is the 4th dimension, while superstring and other leading theories postulate 10-11 dimensions where 5-10 or 11 literally lie "outside" or "beyond" time. In those dimensions, there is no beginning or end because there is no time. Tough concept to wrap one's mind around, sure, but it does render the "who created God" question rather moot because we'd need to know the nature of those higher dimensions (the "firmament" between "Heaven" and "Earth") to answer that. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. A - Ashland, OR - October 5th, 2:41 PM I see the existence of "God" like this: - The Universe has a primal cause (Big Bang) - There is nothing random or coincidental in the Universe. My thesaurus lists "deliberate", "purposeful", etc. as opposites to "random", "accident", etc. The Universe has cause that is deliberate and purposeful. Ergo, "God" exists. NOT the Judeo-Christian "God" or any other god as defined by religion, which is nothing more or less than culturally biased searches for "The Truth". But God nonetheless. A - Ashland, OR - October 5th, 2:45 PM Perhaps 100 years in the future if we indeed still exist these ideas will be debated vehemently. Creation-evolution, what is the real issue? Ego and its beliefs of ownership of what we are here to embrace and caretake creates the need to disagree. We own only our thoughts and even that is questionable. Step out of ego and allow acceptance of one another to take its place, perhaps then we can finally love our neighbor as ourself. All that exists is one eternal mirror, gaze deeply. Colestine Mafia - Hilt, Ca. - October 5th, 4:20 PM Oh please! Your article reminds me of why it's such a good thing Catholicism never took over the world, nor will it ever! (A comet striking the world and obliterating it would be more fortunate!) Your overcomplicated jargon serves as merely a false premise for defense of Intelligent Design and indirectly, kooky findamentalists! What ever makes you think your way of thinking is modern or even in touch with reality? No intellectual or scientist would buy it! Deceiving and believing........ Alan Carter ( [email protected] ) - San Jose CA - October 5th, 6:58 PM CM - That's beautiful. Lear Grace - Ashland Oregon - October 6th, 10:17 AM You got your stellar evolution model completely wrong. Stars do not turn from blue to red then to black holes. Depending on mass, some stars spend most of their "lives" blue OR yellow OR red. The massive ones may end up as a black hole, while the less massive ones end up as white dwarfs. Seeing how completely off you were in reporting the stellar evolution models, it should come as no surprise that your characterisation of biological evolution is also very much in error. LC - Martin, TN - October 6th, 11:47 AM Does Green really believe the things he writes or does he do it to touch a nerve and draw attention to himself?Really Mike,do you believe this stuff brother?I can't believe you and I are so totally different on every issue you have written.Way out there man.No way to respond to your letter in 500 characters. I�ll just say I don�t agree.Just keep writing and the Tidings will print it along with the free advertisement for your book.Why won't they publish some Rush Limbaugh and balance it out? haha Steve L. Iverson - Ashland,Jefferson - October 7th, 10:07 AM Re: 'EVOL SCIENCE' EXPLAINS THE BEGINNING In the beginning, there was nothing according to science. Then something (that did not exist) exploded(?) into(?) our universe. This is a prime example of evol logic-oidness, and is a ludicrous explanation that true scientists would not make, lacking empirical evidence and/or testability. The 'big bang' is akin to 'string theory', all hype and no substance. I reject the idea that evols are limited to such simplistic, brainoid 'scientific truths'. C.E. - Sam Diego - October 8th, 2:00 PM Response to C.E. Your characterizations of universe evolution are completely in error. No real scientist says that the universe began from nothing or that it exploded (it expanded). All scientists agree that the first fraction of a second is poorly understood at present. That does NOT mean that what happened afterward is poorly understood, nor that we should resort to the supernatural for explanations. Just because something cannot be explained NOW, does not mean it will never be explained. L.C. - Martin, TN - October 9th, 12:22 PM Re L.C. of Martin, <<No real scientist says that the universe began from nothing or that it exploded (it expanded).>>------------- C.E.: So in the beginning there was already a substance that 'expanded' outward in an explosive manner? But that was not the "beginning", was it? What we have here is syntax obfuscation. L.C., your failure to make a point is the commom foundation of the 'authoritarian' doctrine of the TOE. Regards, :) C.E. - San Diego - October 9th, 3:06 PM Ah, yes. Science, and the technologies derived from it, faced off once again with ghost stories and fireside myths. I've a simple way out: let those who deny that science and the scientific method are the best way to understand the world, try to explain how a TV or cell phone works, or how clouds make rain, or even why the sky is blue. Good luck! No religion will *ever* explain how the world works. End of story. (Think you have a counterexample? Email me!) E. H. ( [email protected] ) - New York, NY - October 10th, 5:26 PM To C.E. There is no obfuscation here. As I mentioned, what occured in the earliest stages of the universe (which encompasses the "beginning") are poorly understood. Perhaps the Big Bang was not the beginning. But not knowing how the universe began does not invalidate the models of how it evolved afterwards, and those models do not require a supernatural force and ALL the data are inconsistent with creationist models. What about this point is incomprehensible? Regards, L.C. - Martin, TN - October 12th, 7:28 AM Howdy, L.C., "Poorly understood" is synomous with syntax obfuscation, is it not. The 'Big Bang' was popular for a while, but it was not testable, measureable, or explainable, so it fell out of repute. 'String Theory' is in the same boat, popular now, and funded, but unscientific to the core. Admit it, today's models of evolution still are not testable or measureable. "What about this point is incomprehensible?" Just that these hypothesies are not scientific, like String Theory. :) C.E. - San Diego - October 17th, 1:30 PM Nope. Poorly understood just means that there are many parts of it that we do not understand or have not been able to test ... yet. There is no concealment going on. Since when did the Big Bang fall out of repute? And String Theory is not at odds with the Big Bang, it is something that is attempting to model what the conditions were just after the Big Bang (among other things). String Theory and Big Bang can both be good models at the same time. Continued on next L.C. - Martin, TN - October 18th, 10:44 AM The Big Bang Theory, String Theory, and Evolution are perfect examples of science. There are parts of all of them that are not testable YET. And scientists recognize those parts and agree that they are especially tentative. But all three CAN BE DISPROVEN, have all made testable predictions, and have many parts that are measureable. That is what makes them scientific, and what makes ID not scientific. Creation science is different than ID in that it has been tested ... and disproven. L.C. - Martin, TN - October 18th, 10:48 AM Leave a Comment: Advertisement: Advertisement: Paid Advertising Inkjet Printers Student Loans Water Filter Helzberg Diamonds Mortgage Calculator Security Systems Advertisement: Copyright © 2006 Ashland Daily Tidings and Ottaway Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.