tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-166762142011-12-14T18:35:31.418-08:00Kevin Wirthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11906182877964319631noreply@blogger.comBlogger81100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16676214.post-1130906899494941072005-11-01T19:17:00.000-08:002005-11-02T12:14:07.440-08:00<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); LINE-HEIGHT: 24ptfont-family:georgia;" ><span style="font-size:100%;">One of the frequent claims of many Darwinists is that no creationists hold earned degrees, nor have they published in refereed journals. <span style="font-size:+0;"></span>The irony of this is that in many cases it is true <i><u>only</u></i> because of the systematic practice of discrimination which denies earned degrees or publication to deserving individuals solely on the basis of their perceived religious beliefs. This insidious practice, with its horrific toll in loss of jobs, broken promises, and ruined careers has been ongoing in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> for decades, with no apparent end in sight. <span style="font-size:+0;"></span>In fact, the failure to remedy this situation has served only to embolden those who engage in such practices to continue with their rampage against 'religion'. <span style="font-size:+0;"></span><?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p></span></p><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;"><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)">Though the discrimination associated with this issue is all but invisible when it comes to media coverage, it has become the defacto grassroots flashpoint of the culture war today in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>. I know this because I'm currently editing a book by Dr. Jerry Bergman on this topic, and while both he and I have collected numerous case studies of such discrimination over the past two decades, I am still drop-my-jaw-to-the-floor amazed at how this issue continues to remain under the radar of those who preach against religious discrimination (Ted Kennedy, where are you on this one, buddy?). It's almost as if the widespread practice of discrimination against creationists is somehow viewed as an exception to the protections generally afforded to any other group. Anyone who discriminates against a black person for the color of his skin would expect to see the legal system climb all them in a heartbeat. We teach our children that discrimination is bad - but we seem to somehow conveniently exclude creationists from that equation.<br /><br />So, I keep asking myself how this is possible? What is the 'root excuse' that is used to justify the arrogant dismissals from teaching positions, removals from jobs, denials of degrees, and etc. that occur so frequently across America today? What <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">possible </span>justification is there that would explain why no one seems to be coming to the aid of creationists today?<br /></span></span><p class="MsoNormal">The answer is simple, and very visible (just visit a few forums on the internet...). It's because being a creationist is equated with being incompetent. And the basis for that incompetence? If you have any 'religious' beliefs, then you are out of order in the scientific establishment. Simply put, Darwinists say science and religion do not belong in the same room together. Unless of course it's a Darwinist doing the talking.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">How did we get to this point? Well, partly through a maze of twisted spin doctoring. And partly from a legal system that refuses to honor the rights of the oppressed. I'll just introduce some of the causes as I see them in this post.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">I was reading a different blog post earlier today in which <a href="http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000710.html">Henry Neufeld</a> stated flatly that "The issue from the creationist point of view is really religious and not scientific..."<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">I might just as easily say 'The issue from the evolutionist point of view is really atheistic, and not scientific'. So what? What's the big deal with that? Everyone in America has, and is legally entitled to have, their own framework for viewing the universe - especially if it is 'religious'. The Darwinian perspective is 'religious'. It's just not the religion of the Bible. Religious thought is a protected freedom - or so I thought until I began investigating the systematic trashing of creationists two decades ago. Religious freedom of expression simply does not exist in the world of science or academia for the Creationists in our culture.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">That has to change.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">First, I find it very interesting whenever Darwinists seek to speak on behalf of creationists,<span style="font-size:+0;"> many of them </span>invariably fail to characterise the issues fairly or accurately simply because they have their own agenda to promote, and in so doing, they cannot seem to help but create distorted generalities about who creationists are, what they think, and what their 'insidious' agenda is. The result is often a distorted mish-mash of fear mongering, assumptions, and spin-doctoring. What's worse is that when creationists approach people with such a mindset, there is typically little desire on the part of the Darwinian to engage in a fruitful discussion - bashing and name calling seem to be preferred. In many of the online chat rooms I have visited, tolerance for creationists is brutally non-existant or tenuous at best.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">Second, this is perhaps one of the most onerous blasphemies being promoted in the origins debate today: placing creationists on the side of 'religion', while evolutionists remain on the side of 'science'.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>This is a conveniently false claim, whether understood as such or not, and is intended only to marginalize the effectiveness and credibility of creationists, while at the same time promoting the reasonableness of the Darwinian. Enter Sociology professor Steve William Fuller (his <a href="http://www.einaudi.cornell.edu/sshen/pdf/cv_fuller.pdf">cirriculum vitae</a> is a short book in length...), who took the stand yesterday as an expert witness in the on-going trial in Dover, PA. <a href="http://aclupa.blogspot.com/2005/10/scientific-revolution-101.html">What he said in court</a> is now a matter of record. But what he said in his expert witness report ought to give many readers pause over how the origins debate should be framed.<br /><br />Fuller states that "contrary to various opinions...ID is a legitimate scientific inquiry that does not constitute 'religion' in a sense that undermines the persuit of science more generally, or for that matter, undermines the separation of State and Church in the US Constitution...<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">...science and religion are not properly described as mutually exclusive categories (note by KW: with apologies to Stephen J. Gould's concept of separate magesteria). There is no evidence that belief in a supernatural deity inhibits one's ability to study the natural world systematically."<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">But actually, this is <span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-STYLE: italic">precisely</span> the point that many Darwinians make in their opposition to allowing creationists to teach in our schools or actively practice in many fields of science. They frequently claim that one's religious beliefs interfere with one's ability to engage in any scientific enterprise. I know this because I've read tons of case studies where people were praised for their abilities, until it was learned that they believed in God or were 'religious'. When this is discovered, the rug gets pulled out from under the creationist faster than you can say 'discrimination'.</p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p class="MsoNormal">In reality, the difference between the theist and non-theist is simply his perspective, not his alleged inability to perceive or think rationally.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>This perception that 'religious' folks are somehow unable or deficient in their ability to understand, appreciate, or work in the context of science is a conveniently contrived (and erroneous) notion that needs to be understood for what it is: pure rhetoric. If we are going to have a serious conversation on the issue of origins, we need to understand that creationists are not mental sub-humans who are so caught up in their religious beliefs that they can't understand or practice good science. <span style="font-size:+0;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:+0;">Of course, many professors (like <a style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2504">John W. Patterson</a> and <a href="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_27/ai_104733223"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Michael Dini</span></a>) would disagree. They would tend to view creationist ideology in a professor of science as an example of incompetence that must not be tolerated. In fact, they would probably love nothing more than to see creationists stripped of their earned degrees and jobs in academia or the sciences. Just because of their 'religious' beliefs. But I digress (this is good stuff for a different post later on...)<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:+0;"></span>The point I want to make today is that most creationist scientists fully appreciate and understand how science operates just as well as the evolutionist scientist.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>They simply have a different frame of reference for which they should in no way be penalized or disqualified from participating in the scientific enterprise.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Yet, this practice has been steadily on the rise against creationists in American academia and science for the last 30+ years in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>There is no "genteel" way of characterising such a practioce as anything other than bald religious discrimination. That it has been allowed to continue unchallenged is seen by those who are guilty of such discrimination as a tacit acceptance of it.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">That's going to change.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">But as many Darwinists see it from their 'rational' frame of reference, such actions are not perceived as discrmination at all - but are instead the response one should expect from those who are intent on protecting the sanctity and integrity of science from an invasion of misguided religious zealots. The bottom line is, religious freedom may be a protected right, but it is currently not actually BEING protected within the scientific or academic enterprise.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>People with religious convictions are being systematically expunged from the ranks of academia and science.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>If you're a scientist, then you'd better not be religious, in any way.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>If you are and you let it be known, you're throwing the dice - and quite often it's lethal for your scientific or academic career.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>The message is loud and clear: you cannot possibly be a good scientist and also be 'religious'.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>And the reason why this is so is also clear, as <a href="http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000710.html">Henry Neufeld</a> says "the actions of anti-evolutionists constitute an attack on science and the scientific method".</p><p class="MsoNormal">They do no such thing, and herein lies much confusion from the Darwinist camp, which constantly laments this contrived threat.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Creationists are NOT a threat to science - they simply CHALLENGE THE CONCLUSIONS that many Darwinian scientists have reached.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>And, many of those conclusions, which are solidly based on conjecture, are erroneously characterized as bedrock "principles of science'. Which they are not.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Conclusions reached as a result of applying scientific research and the principles of science must never be confused as having the same value.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>They don't.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Most creationists understand this.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Many Darwinists, unfortunately, do not. Creationists are not 'attacking science', and they are not a threat to 'science'. That's just the spin that many Darwinists insist on using to advocate support for their position.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">Creationists may however, and RIGHTLY SO, challenge the Darwinian conclusions reached as a result of scientific investigation.<span style="font-size:+0;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><br /></o:p></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/16676214-113090689949494107?l=crevoblog.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Kevin Wirthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11906182877964319631noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16676214.post-1127788017998050162005-09-26T19:03:00.000-07:002005-09-27T20:34:42.380-07:00<div style="text-align: justify;">Today marks the start of the latest CREVO court trial in the USA. At stake is the right of high School students in PA (and if the school board wins, other schools throughout the US) to be taught that there are problems with Darwinism and that Intelligent Design may be taught as a scientific alternative. I present you with a brief summary of the events leading up to the trial, to be followed by comments and analysis.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">BACKGROUND: WHAT STARTED ALL THE FUSS?</span><br /><br />On Oct 18, 2004, the Dover School Board (a community of 20,000+ in a largely Amish region located about 20 miles south of Harrisburg) passed a resolution (6-3) stating the following:<br /><br />"Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design".<br /><br />Evidently, the ACLU took issue with the following statement that the Dover School Board approved for presentation to all 9th grade biology students at Dover High School:<br /><br />"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. </div> <p style="text-align: justify;">"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.</p> <div style="text-align: justify;"> "Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, "Of Pandas and People," is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. </div> <p style="text-align: justify;">"With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."<br /></p> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify;">So it appears that the ACLU got several people to join in a lawsuit to challenge what they clearly perceive to be a most obnoxious resolution and statement - and squash it before other school boards got any similar ideas. You can read the text of the lawsuit filed by the ACLU <a href="http://www.aclu.org/evolution/legal/complaint.pdf">here</a>. </p> <div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="font-weight: bold;">WHAT THE LAWSUIT SAYS</span><br /><br />The 25-page complaint filed by the ACLU on <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141431,00.html">December 14, 2005</a>, contends in part that:<br /><br />1) Intelligent Design (ID) is a non-scientific argument or assertion<br />2) ID is an "inherently religious argument...that falls outside the realm of science"<br />3) ID is "consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"<br />4) The purpose in passing the October 18, 2005 resolution was "similarly religious"<br />5) That the "effect" of the October 18th resolution "will be to compel public school science teachers to present to their students in biology class information that is inherently religious, not scientific, in nature".<br /><br />As a remedy, the plaintiffs in the matter "seek a declaration that the defendants' intelligent design policy violates the Constitution of the United States AND the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. They also seek an injunction to prevent such violations" [from recurring].<br /><br />The ACLU has also gone to the trouble of posting comments from several leading protagonists opposing ID on their <a href="http://www.aclu.org/evolution/profiles.html">web site</a>. Included on the ACLU website are statements from (see link in previous sentence) Dr. <a href="http://www.selu.edu/Academics/Depts/HIPS/forrest.html">Barbara Forrest</a>, Dr. <a href="http://www.meta-library.net/bio/jh-body.html">John F. Haught</a>, Dr. <a href="http://bms.brown.edu/faculty/m/kmiller/">Kenneth R. Miller</a>, Dr. <a href="http://www.msu.edu/%7Epennock5/">Robert T. Pennock</a>, Dr. <a href="http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/%7Eshallit/">Jeffrey Shallit</a>, Dr. <a href="http://www.mcgill.ca/researchoffice/units/">Brian Alters</a>, and Dr. <a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/people/padian/webintro.html">Kevin Padian</a>. Statements from each of these individuals are in support of the ACLU lawsuit, and generally comment on the unsuitability of the ID arguments in our science classrooms.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">WHO WILL TESTIFY? </span><br /><div class="kw_format"> <p>In any trial like this, it's nice to know in advance who the likely expert witnesses will be. The list of plaintiff experts include (as listed on the ACLU site mentioned above):</p> <p><br />1. Ken Miller ( 09/26/05)<br />2. Brian Alters<br />3. Barbara Forrest<br />4. John Haught<br />5. Kevin Padian<br />6. Rob Pennock<br />7. Jeffrey Shallit<br /></p> <p>The list of experts for the defendents include:</p> <p>1. Michael Behe<br />2. John A. Campbell<br />3. Dick Carpenter<br />4. William Dembski<br />5. Steve Fuller<br />6. Stephen C. Meyer<br />7. Scott Minnich<br />8. Warren Nord<br /></p> <p>There seems to be some question about whether Campbell, Dembski, and Meyer will testify.<br /></p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold;">PRE-TRIAL QUOTES<br /></span></p> <p><font><span class="fullpost">Witold J. Walczak, legal director of the A.C.L.U. of Pennsylvania, said the plaintiffs would call six experts in history, theology, philosophy of science and science to show that no matter the perspective, "intelligent design is not science because it does not meet the ground rules of science, is not based on natural explanations, is not testable."<br /><br /></span>"This is an attempt by the A.C.L.U. to really intimidate this small-town school board," said Mr. Richard Thompson, a former Michigan prosecutor who will defend the Dover board at the trial, "because the theory of intelligent design is starting to gain some resonance among school boards across the country."<br /><br /><span class="fullpost">(<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/26/education/26evolution.html?th&emc=th">A Web of Faith, Law and Science in Evolution Suit</a> - NY Times 09/26/05)<br /></span></span></p><font><font> </span></span><p><font><font><font> "Where are all the protesters?" a reporter from The Wall Street Journal asked. "I'm so disappointed."</span></span></span></p><font><font><font><font> <font><font><font> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font> <span style="font-weight: bold;">OPENING TRIAL QUOTES<br /><br />"<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">There is no controversy in the scientific community about the strenth of evolution</span>"</span> - Eric Rothschild of Pepper Hamilton LLP (Plaintiffs attorney)<br /><br />(<font><span style="font-style: italic;">I beg to differ with Rothchild's opening remark. Contrary to what he says, there is indeed quite a </span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">bit </span><span style="font-style: italic;">of controversy in the scientific community about the strength of evolution. To say there is 'no controversy' is like saying that all Americans support the war in Iraq. It just ain't so. In fact, I'd wager that there is </span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">no </span><span style="font-style: italic;">group anywhere that has such unanimity of opinion. So, this comment was clearly designed to paint a picture of unity - but unfortunately - it's a lie. - KW</span>)<span class="fullpost"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">MY ANALYSIS OUT OF THE GATE<br /><br /></span> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font>Will Intelligent Design get a fair hearing? It doesn't look that way. The ACLU is conjuring up the same old out-worn notion that ID is inherently a religious idea, creationism re-fitted in a new set of clothes. To say that ID is "inherently religious" is an ill-conceived and contrived tactic designed to relegate ID to the realm 'religion', where it cannot compete in the scientific arena. The lawsuit even says that the idea of ID is "consonant with Christian and Theistic convictions".<br /><br />So what? A lot of ideas are "consonant" or "consistent" with other things, but that doesn't seem to be a problem. Intelligent Design is consistent with architecture, and many architects draw inspiration for their designs from their religious faith. I don't see the ACLU calling architecture an inherently 'religious' concept and filing a lawsuit to prevent teaching architecture in our high schools. Darwinism is largely consistent with many people who believe (with what has often been noted as 'religious' conviction...) that there is no God. So why not bar Evolution from our schools? Religion is and should not be on center stage here folks: good SCIENCE should be. It matters not where an idea comes from or what it may be consistent with - what matters is how well the idea stands on its own two feet.<br /><br />But that's not the card the ACLU appears to be playing. From the looks of things, it seems that the ACLU is taking the approach that Intelligent Design was not mandated by the Dover School Board with a "secular intent". It's clear that the ACLU is confident that it can establish this, and therefore win their case, but it's hardly the criteria that should be used to determine whether ID is worthy of being presented in our school science classes.<br /><br />And, it's worth noting that the ACLU didn't call on Dr. David M. Raup who noted many years ago that "I think it can be argued that whether a body of reasoning is scientific or not should be decided independantly of the question of whether the adherents are committed to one ideology or another. In my view, a few of the arguments used by the creationists are "scientific" in the sense that they use the basic methods of testing hypotheses normally considered to be scientific. This does not mean, of course, that the conclusions are correct". (Godfrey, 1983, p. 159)<br /><br />Well said indeed. So, IS there any 'scientific' evidence for creation? Surely there are many competent sources which claim there is. Of course there are. One such source has been published for years, but few seem to be taking notice.<br /><br />Wendell R. Bird thoroughly addressed this issue in his prodigious research way back in 1987, noting that at least seven different lines of distinct evidence for systematic abrupt appearance (i.e., creation by ID) exist that are scientific, and not 'religious'. Those lines of evidence include Paleontology (systematic abrupt appearance), Paleontology (systematic gaps), Comparative Morphology (systematic similarity and stasis), Information Content, Probability (Natural laws of statistics), Genetics (Natural law of limited change), and Comparative Discontinuity. (Bird, 1987, ch. 2)<br /><br />None of these arguments rely on chapter and verse from any relgious text. And, those notions are not all put forward by just ID advocates, either.<br /><br />Besides, I take heart in seeing that FINALLY some folks are agreeing with my contention that if ID is so deficient, let's allow the kids to compare it to evolution and see for themselves what the fuss is all about. As Washington Post writer and devout Darwinian Jay Matthews opined recently (and I agree): "I think critiques of modern biology... could be one of the best things to happen to high school science." True, there would need to be some caveats put in place. Like, let's do away with the name calling, and present both theories with respect. ID is deserving of the respect of the scientific community. Ridiculous accusations that it is "consonant" with religion should be seen for the smokescreen that they are, and ad hominem attacks should be dispensed with immediately.<br /><br />Let's see what transpires in court during the coming week.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">TODAY'S TRIAL HIGHLIGHTS<br /><br /></span>Kenneth Miller took the stand today and offered testimony that intelligent design is untestable, and is therefore unscientific. Yet he later admitted that at least one ID concept WAS scientifically testable. He commented that the concept of Irreducible Complexity, made famous by Michael Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box, was flawed, since there are an infinite number of possible alternatives, not just the notion that life was created by an intelligent designer. You can read Miller's entire expert statement, submitted on March 30, 2005, <a href="http://www.aclu.org/evolution/statements/miller.pdf">here</a>.<font><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">TRIAL UPDATES and COMMENTARY<br /><br /></span>The <a href="http://aclupa.blogspot.com/">ACLU </a>blog provides frequent updates about what's going on inside the trial<br /><br /><font><font>You can also read the blo-by-blow trial coverage, analysis, and comments provided by the <a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/">Discovery Institut</a><a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/">e</a>.<br /><br /><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font>PRE-TRIAL COMMENTARY</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><br /></span><font><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span> <div style="text-align: justify;"><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol24/4838_design_on_trial_in_dover_penn_12_30_1899.asp">Design on Trial in Dover, PA</a> - NCSE Report by Nicholas J. Matzke. This piece covers some of the pre-trial actions including some rather revealing deposition excerpts from Dover School Board members.<br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div> <font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font> </span><a href="http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_3055856">Trial Puts Dover Debate in national spotlight</a> - York Dispatch, 09/23/05<br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05268/577404.stm">'intelligent design' supporters to state their case in court</a>, by Bill Toland, Pittsburgh-Post Gazette, 09/25/05<br /><br /><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><span style="font-weight: bold;">NEWS COVERAGE and OP-EDS<br /></span><font><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><font><a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2005-09-26T221005Z_01_BAU361418_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-EVOLUTION.xml&amp;archived=False">God vs. Science in schools Debated in US Court</a> - Reuters, 09/26/05<span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html?sub=new">New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory</a> - </span><span style="font-size:100%;">Pa. Trial Will Ask Whether 'Alternatives' Can Pass as Science,</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> by Rick Weiss and David Brown, WA Post, 09/26/05</span><br /><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><a href="http://www.pennlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/1127812930231650.xml?pennnews&coll=1">Professor Says Dover 'misleads' students</a> - [Harrisburg] Patriot News, 09/26/05<br /><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1578689,00.html">US Schools' evolution teaching goes on trial</a> - The Guardian (Great Britain) - 09/26/05<br /><br /><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><span style="font-weight: bold;">COMMENTS FROM OTHER BLOGGERS<br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">PRO Evolution</span>:<br /><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font></span><font></span></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><a href="http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/2005/09/shame-in-dover.html">Red State Rabble </a>(RSR) says: RSR wonders, how we are to teach children that telling the truth is important when those who claim to have a special relationship with the God of the Ten Commandments -- who are the elected officials charged with running the schools -- refuse to do something so simple, so basic, as to tell the truth.<br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font> </span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">PRO Intelligent Design</span>:<br /><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font></span><font></span></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><a href="http://godlesswonder.blogspot.com/2005/09/designer-fashions.html">The Lone Ranger</a>. Do you know how the Declaration of Independence was written? It seems that Thomas Jefferson's youngest son spilled a box of letter blocks out on the floor and there it was -- perfectly spelled and punctuated -- without a single block out of alignment.<br /><br /><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font>Of course, rational people would never believe that story. But those same rational people DO believe something as infinitely complex as the universe could randomly come together after a Big Bang, perfect down to the tiniest subatomic particle, without any intelligent intervention.<br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font> </span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font><br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;">REFERENCES:</span><br /><br />Bird, Wendell Raleigh. <span style="font-style: italic;">Origin of Species Revisited</span>. Philosophical Library (Vol. I).<br />Godfrey, Laurie R. <span style="font-style: italic;">Scientists Confront Creationism</span>. W.W. Norton, 1983.<br />Goodstein, Laurie. <span class="fullpost"></span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/26/education/26evolution.html?th&emc=th">A Web of Faith, Law and Science in Evolution Suit</a> - NY Times 09/26/05<br />Matthews, Jay. <a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27793-2005Apr5.html">Intelligent Design, Unintelligent Me</a>. WA Post, April 5, 2005 and <a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58465-2005Mar22.html">Who's Afraid of Intelligent Design</a>?<br />Matzke, Nicholas J. <a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol24/4838_design_on_trial_in_dover_penn_12_30_1899.asp">Design on Trial in Dover</a><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol24/4838_design_on_trial_in_dover_penn_12_30_1899.asp">, PA</a>. NCSE website.<br /><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/16676214-112778801799805016?l=crevoblog.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Kevin Wirthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11906182877964319631noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16676214.post-1127173776827379712005-09-19T16:48:00.000-07:002005-09-27T17:38:28.300-07:00<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-size:130%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;">QUOTES</span></span><br /></div> <span style="font-family: georgia;font-size:130%;" ><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" ><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);">from an Evolutionary perspective</span>:<br /><br /></span></span> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;">Note by KW: There is no fossil record documenting the evolution of the eukaryotes. This means that the ideas about their evolution have been inferred as speculations formed from a study of the biology of modern organisms.<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;">"<span style="font-style: italic;">We have made a number of general and specific statements about the nature and direction of coevolution in bacteria and their viruses and plasmids...Most of these statements about how things came to be are no more than microbial Just So Stories. As is the case with other evolutionary phenomena, </span><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">there is no way to formally demonstrate that the suggested pathways are indeed the actual ways things came to be</span></i>". (Coevolution in bacteria and their viruses and plasmids, in Coevolution 99, pg. 126-27 (Douglas Futuyma and M. Slatkin, eds. 1983)<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;">"<span style="font-style: italic;">The differences in the biochemistry of messenger RNA formation in eukaryotes compared to prokaryotes are so profound as to suggest that </span><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">sequential prokaryotic to eukaryotic cell evolution seems unlikely</span></i><span style="font-style: italic;">. The recently discovered noncontiguous sequences in eukaryotic DNA that encode messenger RNA may reflect an ancient, rather than a new, distribution of information in DNA and that eukaryotes evolved independently of prokaryotes</span>". (Darnell, Implications of RNA-RNA Splicing in Evolution of Eukaryotic Cells, 202 Science 1257 (1978)<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;">"<i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">We know</span></i><span style="font-style: italic;"> the overall sequence of life's origin, from CHONSP (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus), to monomers, to polymers, to cells; </span><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">we know</span></i><span style="font-style: italic;"> that the origin of life was early, microbial, and unicellular; and </span><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">we know</span></i><span style="font-style: italic;"> that an RNA world preceded today's DNA-protein world. </span><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">We do not know</span></i><span style="font-style: italic;"> the precise environments of the early earth in which these events occurred; </span><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">we do not know</span></i><span style="font-style: italic;"> the exact chemistry of some of the important chemical reactions that led to life; and </span><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">we do not have any knowledge of</span></i><span style="font-style: italic;"> life in a pre-RNA world." As for what we have failed to consider, Schopf suggested that the "'pull of the present' makes it extremely difficult for us to model the early earth's atmosphere and the biochemistry of early life</span>." (UCLA Paleobiologist William Schopf, quoted from <a href="http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00020722-64FD-12BC-A0E483414B7FFE87"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Woodstock of Evolution</span></a>, Scientific American, June 27, 2005).<br /><br />(<span style="font-weight: bold;">NOTE</span> by KW: These are the kind of statements that evolutionists make all the time, basically saying "we know that evolution happened, we just don't know how". Most people with any common sense understand this to be a 'cart before the horse' type of remark that anyone with an ounce of common sense can understand. Such remarks simply do not fly with any educated person, unless they are pre-disposed to accept evolution. That evolutionists continue making such statements, while at the same time insisting that evolution is the only acceptable explanation for the origin and development of life, indicates that they have yet to learn that it is precisely statements like this that convince the rest of the planet that evolution is just pure speculation, and is not worthy of being regarded as the sole alternative)<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" ><br /></span></span>"<em>One of the most difficult stages to be explained in evolution is to scientifically explain how organelles and complex cells developed from these primitive creatures [bacterial cells]. </em><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">No transitional form has been found between these two forms</span></i><em>. One and multicelled creatures carry all this complicated structure, and no creature or group has yet been found with organelles of a simpler construction in any way, or which are more primitive. In other words, the organelles carried forward have developed just as they are. They have no simple and primitive forms...</em><span style="font-style: italic;">Complex cells never developed from primitive cells by a process of evolution.</span><em>"</em><em> (</em><span style="font-style: italic;">Kalitim ve Evrim</span> (Inheritance and Evolution), by Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Ankara, Meteksan Yayýnlarý, 1984, p. 79. NOTE: Dr. Demirsoy is an evolutionist...)<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"</span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >T</span><span style="font-style: italic;">he gap between eukaryotes, cells with nuclei, and prokaryotes, cells which lack nuclei, is considered by many biologists to be the most profound missing link in evolutionary history."</span><br />(<span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.geocities.com/jjmohn/endosymbiosis.htm"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Serial Endosymbiosis Theory of Eukaryotic Evolution</span></a>, by </span>Jeremy Mohn.)<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" ><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);">from an Intelligent Design perspective</span>:<br /><br /><br /></span></span></div> <em style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></em><span style="font-family: georgia;font-size:130%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">READINGS </span><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" ><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);">from an Evolutionary perspective</span>:</span></span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;">"<span style=";font-size:100%;" >Eukaryotes </span><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">must have arisen</span></i><span style=";font-size:100%;" > from prokaryotic ancestors. Many aspects of this are still unknown, but there is persuasive evidence that the <strong>mitochondria</strong> and <strong>plastids</strong> (chloroplasts) of today’s eukaryotes are derived from prokaryotes. For example, both mitochondria and plastids have a single circle of DNA (the vestige of a bacterial chromosome) which codes for some of their functions. Also, mitochondria and plastids have ribosomes that resemble those of prokaryotes (termed <strong>70S ribosomes</strong>) and that are sensitive to antibacterial antibiotics. Gene sequencing shows that:</span></div> <ul style="font-family: georgia;"> <li><span style=";font-size:100%;" >the <strong>mitochondrial genome</strong> </span><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">almost certainly</span></i><span style=";font-size:100%;" > arose from a <strong>purple bacterium</strong><br /></span></li><li><span style=";font-size:100%;" >the <strong>plastid genome</strong> </span><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">almost certainly</span></i><span style=";font-size:100%;" > </span><span style=";font-size:100%;" > arose from a <strong>cyanobacterium</strong>.</span></li> </ul> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"><span style=";font-size:100%;" >Thus, </span><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">it is believed that</span></i><span style=";font-size:100%;" > these organelles of eukaryotes represent bacteria that once lived inside the cells of other bacteria. Over evolutionary time, the <strong>endosymbionts</strong> (ntermal dwellers) lost the ability for an independent life and became reduced to the state of serving particular functions (oxidative energy metabolism, and photosynthesis) in eukaryotes.</span></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> <span style=";font-size:100%;" >It is much more difficult to trace the origins of two other characteristic features of eukaryotes - the <strong>nucleus</strong> and the <strong>cytoskeleton</strong> (which is composed or microtubules and associated proteins)</span><br /></div> <span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><br /><br /></span> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"><span style=";font-size:100%;" ><a href="http://helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/bto/microbes/">The Microbial World</a>,<br />produced by Jim Deacon<br /></span><span style=";font-size:100%;" >Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology<br />The University of Edinburgh.<br /><br /></span>Tree of Life Web Project: <a href="http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Eukaryotes">Eukaryotes</a><br />Patterson,<span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>David J and Sogin, Mitchell L. <br /> The Josephine Bay Paul Center in Comparative Molecular Biology and Evolution<br /> Marine Biological Laboratory<br /> 7 MBL Street<br /> Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543<br /><br /><a href="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/resources/readings_dawson.shtml">Creatures from the Black Lagoon</a>:<span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>Lessons in the Diversity and<span style=";font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>Evolution of Eukaryotes, by Scott Dawson.</span><br /></div> <span style="font-family: georgia;font-size:130%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0); font-weight: bold;">from an Intelligent Design perspective</span><span style="font-weight: bold;">:</span></span></span><br /><em style="font-family: georgia;"><br />xxx<br /><br /><br /></em><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-family: georgia;font-size:130%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;">EXPERTS</span></span><br /><em style="font-family: georgia;"><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 102, 0);">Evolution</span><br /><br /></em> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">DOOLITTLE, Russell F. </span>- Professor of molecular biology at the University of California, San Diego.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />KEELING</span>, Dr. Patrick - Canadian Institute for Advanced Research scholar at the University of British Columbia<br /></div><span style="font-family: georgia;"> (604) 822-4906</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: georgia;">MARGULIS</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">, Lynn -</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: georgia;">SCHOPF</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">, William - UCLA Paleobiologist</span><br /><br /><br /><em style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: georgia;">Intelligent Design<br /><br /></span><font><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: georgia;">xxx</span><br /><br /></span></span></em><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/16676214-112717377682737971?l=crevoblog.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Kevin Wirthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11906182877964319631noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16676214.post-1127164647493741222005-09-19T13:48:00.000-07:002005-09-26T19:02:36.886-07:00<div style="text-align: justify;">Quite often, evolutionists make presumptive statements about evolutionary events or pathways. While their perspective is the primary influence in academia, the media, and most of the scientific enterprise - they are in fact a minority playing to a listening audience comprised primarily of individuals who believe in a Creator, or who are at least sympathetic to that notion. Therefore, if they ever hope to convince others that Darwinism has any credibility, they need to produce evidence <span style="font-weight: bold;">BEFORE </span>they promote any evolutionary conclusions.<br /><br />For example, at the recent <a href="http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00020722-64FD-12BC-A0E483414B7FFE87">World Summit on Evolution</a> held in June on the Galapagos Islands, Paleobiologist William Schopf made a statement that, while honest, is a classic example of what evolutionists do all the time: They put the cart (assume that evolution is the process that occurred) before the horse (when they clearly can't explain HOW that process works). Here's a snippet of what Schopf said at the conference:<br /><br />"<i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">We know</span></i><span style="font-style: italic;"> the overall sequence of life's origin, from CHONSP (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus), to monomers, to polymers, to cells; </span><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">we know</span></i><span style="font-style: italic;"> that the origin of life was early, microbial, and unicellular; and </span><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">we know</span></i><span style="font-style: italic;"> that an RNA world preceded today's DNA-protein world. </span><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">We do not know</span></i><span style="font-style: italic;"> the precise environments of the early earth in which these events occurred; </span><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">we do not know</span></i><span style="font-style: italic;"> the exact chemistry of some of the important chemical reactions that led to life; and </span><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">we do not have any knowledge of</span></i><span style="font-style: italic;"> life in a pre-RNA world." </span><br /><br />When Schopf and other evolutionists say things like this, they presume (consciously?) the outcome before they can demonstrate it. Though the common man may see such remarks as lacking in common sense, even well educated people can see the inconguity in such statements. Or maybe it's just another instance of that evolutionist double-speak that we shouldn't confuse the "fact" of evolution with the "theory"? Sorry, but in my book if the facts don't support the theory - indeed - if they can NEVER support the theory - then honesty requires that we refer to evolution for what it really is and forever will be: speculation and conjecture.<br /><br />Most people understand that the <span style="font-weight: bold;">basis </span>for arriving at any evolutionary conclusion <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">requires </span>that we <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">first </span>define how that conclusion was reached. The is the normal expectation of a rational, thinking person. If evolutionists can't do that, then who in the world is going to believe it when they say "we don't know how it happened, we just know it did"? And what right does anyone have to admonish the skeptic for refusing to accept such an absurd proposition - conclusion reached without any evidence? Without a well-defined cause, why in the world would an evolutionist expect anyone else to accept their presumed outcome - since clearly it's just a presumption (based on evolutionary speculation).<br /><br />The only people who are likely going to accept such statements are those who have a pre-disposition towards accepting evolution in the first place.<br /><br />That evolutionists continue making such statements, while at the same time insisting that evolution is the only acceptable explanation for the origin and development of life, indicates that they have yet to learn that it is precisely statements like this that convince the skeptic that evolution is not credible, and is certainly not worthy of being regarded as the sole explanation for the origin and devleopment of life on this planet.<br /><br />And, as I said, statements like this are made all the time:<br /><br /><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><i>“It is not difficult to imagine how feathers, once evolved, assumed additional functions, but how they arose initially, presumably from reptilian scales, defies analysis…”<span style=""> </span>( </i>Stahl, Barbara J. <i><u>Vertebrate History – Problems in Evolution</u></i>. <st1:place st="on"><st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on"><st1:city st="on">Dover</st1:city></st1:place></st1:city></st1:place> Books, NY - 1985, <span style="">pg. 349)</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><br /><br /><br /></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/16676214-112716464749374122?l=crevoblog.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Kevin Wirthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11906182877964319631noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16676214.post-1127120950258689542005-09-19T01:19:00.000-07:002005-09-19T13:19:32.010-07:00The following recent articles are noteworthy:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">NY TIMES</span><br />A series of articles on the CREVO debate has begun to surface at the NY Times recently. For complete coverage, including links to all the NY Times articles listed below, click <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/pages/science/sciencespecial2/">here</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html?ex=1127275200&en=be761adbe2a54b67&amp;ei=5070"><span style="font-style: italic;">Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive</span></a>, by Jodi Wilgoren - NY Times, Aug 21, 2005. The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based Intelligent Design thinktank, is investigated.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/national/22design.html?ex=1127275200&en=4247f12746db1193&amp;ei=5070"><span style="font-style: italic;">In Explaining Life's Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash</span></a>, by Kenneth Chang - NY Times, Aug. 22, 2005.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?ex=1127275200&en=5e36dcbb53764fb5&amp;ei=5070"><span style="font-style: italic;">Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science</span></a>, by Cornelia Dean - NY Times, Aug. 23, 2005.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html?ex=1127275200&en=2e4fd65ddf91fd05&amp;ei=5070"><span style="font-style: italic;">Teaching of Creationism is Endorsed in New Survey</span></a>, by Laurie Goldstein - NY Times, Aug. 31, 2005. Recent survey finds that 2/3 of Americans believe that Creation should be taught alongside Evolution in our public schools.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN</span><br /><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00020722-64FD-12BC-A0E483414B7FFE87">The Woodstock of Evolution</a>, by Michael Shermer. June 27, 2005.<br />The World Summit on Evolution, held in the Galapagos Islands (where the Beagle first dropped anchor), revealed a science rich in history and tradition, data and theory, as well as controversy and debate.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">WIRED</span><br /><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html">The Crusade Against Evolution</a>, by Evan Ratliff. WIRED - Issue 12.10 (October, 2004)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">COMMENTS</span>:<br />P.Z. <a href="http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/the_sanctimonious_bombast_of_george_gilder/">Myers</a> - Pharrryngula<br /><a href="http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News&amp;id=2251">Discovery Institute</a> - Seattle, WA<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/16676214-112712095025868954?l=crevoblog.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Kevin Wirthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11906182877964319631noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16676214.post-1126919785744883372005-09-16T18:14:00.000-07:002005-09-20T13:45:32.726-07:00<p face="arial" style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">By Kevin Wirth<br /><br />One of the things I've noticed about evolutionary explanations is that they are just chock full of speculation. Not that it could be any other way - since after all - science cannot ever hope to demonstrate conclusively that any proposed historic evolutionary event or scenario ever really took place. But it's interesting to note that the way evolutionists get around this little detail is through the use of speculations, extrapolations, and conjecture to fill in the gaps. And it is this combination of facts (data) and speculation which is presented as "evidence supporting evolution" and is then fed through periodicals and the media to academia, the scientific enterprise, and the public.<br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;font-family:georgia;" class="MsoNormal">Evolutionists, content that such 'evidence' is more than adequate to make their case, then react with everything ranging from mild irritation to angry rhetoric against those who would dare to challenge their findings. They label those who would challenge evolution as "ignorant" yahoos bent on destroying the very fabric of civilization as we know it.<br /><o:p></o:p></p> <p style="text-align: justify;font-family:georgia;" class="MsoNormal">To suggest that protecting a set of pet speculations is akin to protecting all of science and modern civilization from disaster is a contrived tactic designed to instill fear in the minds of the uninformed, and flies in the face of polls that consistently show we <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">already </span>live in a culture that is dominated by people who believe in the notion of a Creator.<br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;font-family:georgia;" class="MsoNormal">Evolutionists are just having kittens over this.<br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;font-family:georgia;" class="MsoNormal">They can't believe that so many people persist in being so dumb or irrational, superstitious, unreasonable, ignorant, or any one of 25 other undesirable things that (they say) define such people. I often hear the claim that if we allow ID to be taught to our kids, we will quickly lose our spot as a world leader in the realm of science. It'll all be downhill after that. This is because we will be (allegedly) replacing scientific facts with faith or some other form of religious mumbo jumbo.<br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;font-family:georgia;" class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 37pt;font-family:georgia;"><span style="color:black;"><span style="font-style: italic;">"While the Russians are building up their scientific technological education, their friends of the Moral Majority are attempting to destroy our science teaching. ‘Scientific’ creationism is contradictory to the teaching of science; young people will learn to take things on faith rather than as the result of truth through experiment—that is, the scientific method. Thus we will lose our future scientists while the Soviets will continue to forge ahead....It is important that we in the free world do not Lysenkoize our scientific education. We must stop the efforts of Falwell and company, who are bent on returning us to the Middle Ages and possibly oblivion". </span>(</span><span style=";font-size:100%;color:black;" >Mayer, William.<span style=""> </span>1982.<i><span style=""> </span></i><span style="font-style: italic;">The Legacy of </span><st1:place style="font-style: italic;" st="on"><st1:city st="on">Darwin</st1:city></st1:place>,<span style=""> </span><i>Free Inquiry</i>, 2(3):28-31</span><span style="color:black;"><span style="font-size:100%;">)</span>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify;font-family:georgia;" class="MsoNormal">“We must be doing something wrong” evolutionists often lament – adding that science education simply <span style="font-style: italic;">must </span>improve so that the general population no longer adheres to that outmoded and unscientific notion of a Creator.<span style=""> </span>They never seem to understand that maybe it’s them, not us, who fails to understand a thing or two. It never occurs to many evolutionists that nature exhibits evidence of a creator everywhere we look, and that we don't need to reference a holy book to make a case for it.<br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;font-family:georgia;" class="MsoNormal">Robert F. Kennedy Jr. put it pretty succintly just this past weekend when he said:<br /></p> <p face="georgia" style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p> </p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"><i style="">"We don't know Michelangelo by reading his biography; we know him by looking at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. And we know our creator best by immersing ourselves in creation." (<a href="http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/rfkspeech/">We Must Take America Back</a>, speech delivered on Saturday, 10 September 2005 at the Sierra Summit in San Francisco, CA)<br /></i></p> <p face="georgia" style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">Regardless of whether you think Kennedy is a politician, environmentalist, or scientist, his remarks on this point reflect the perspective shared by a majority of Americans. But in the battle for freedom of thought, it’s comments like these that far too many of our educators absolutely refuse to tolerate, much less contemplate. A minority of evolutionists are intent on controlling how this debate gets presented to our kids and the public, and so far, they've been largely successful.<span style=""> </span>It’s an ill-conceived intellectual turf war and PR campaign all rolled into one. And I plan to spend a little bit of energy in this blog showing you how the battle is waged, and why it’s so important to challenge it.<br /></p> <p face="georgia" style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">One of the reasons why evolution fails to persuade the majority of Americans is because they co-mingle facts (data) with conjecture, and come up with a form of double-speak that most people can see through (except evolutionists). A combination of facts, theory, conjecture, guesswork, and extrapolations that cannot be falsified does not equal unequivocal evidence in the minds of most rational people - those who see what they want to see will buy into it, but others will remain skeptical. And it most certainly also doesn't mean, as many evolutionists are quick to retort, that their target audience is 'uneducated' - it means that the evolutionists have not presented a convincing case in a way that makes sense to them. Taking their target audience (the American public) to court to <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">ensure </span>that the evolutionary perspective is protected against dissent by ramming it down their throats doesn't help much either. What's that old proverb, "A man convinced against his will remains unconvinced still"?<br /></p> <p face="georgia" style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">It looks to most Americans like the evolutionists are reacting with a flair for thuggery rather than a sense of fairness or decency. Like it or not, you don't convince people by putting chains on what they can think about, or shutting down their skepticism or dissent by acts of discrimination, bigotry, and legal maneuvers. What that approach accomplishes instead is arouse a sense of "what's up with those people, anyway? Why are they so adamant that only <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">their </span>idea should be considered - what's the big deal, anyway?" and before you know it, their efforts will backfire. And they have. Evolution has earned a reputation of being unnecessarily militant and over the edge in the past 25 years. And part of the rason for that is because Americans don't like to be <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">told what they have to think </span>because it's so...un-American.<br /></p> <p face="georgia" style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">It's like an ice cream man with an ice slush product trying to tell a kid that it's really a vanilla bar. No kid is going to believe it. If it LOOKS like an ice slush product, do you blame the kid and call him stupid or ignorant? If any product manufacturer in a free enterprise environment took on this marketing approach, they would doomed to failure from day one. This is exactly what the evolutionists have done, and why they have failed to convince the majority of Americans that their perspective holds as much water as they claim it does.<br /><br />But, I digress. Let me get back on track here with the point: evolutionists mix facts with speculation to spin stories about evolution and then call that concoction all that is necessary to establish the credibility of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. How do they do this? What is their approach? <br /><o:p></o:p></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p face="georgia" style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">First, the evolutionists make an authoritative claim that “evolution is a scientific fact”, and the notion of a Creator is inherently a “religious” idea.<span style=""> </span>They trot out some of the best “Who’s Who” in science to back up these claims, as if that’s going to make a difference.<span style=""> </span>In fact, thankfully, it makes little difference because what the evolutionists don’t seem to understand is that their approach is fatally flawed. Why? Because they don’t understand that facts+speculation do not = facts, they = speculation+facts. And anyone with any common sense knows that you can't make a case and call something a fact with just a bunch of speculations. Duh.<o:p></o:p></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p face="georgia" style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">When I suggested that the speculation of creationists is no different than the speculation of evolutionists in a blog this past week, someone in the academic community immediately put me in my place by saying that:<o:p></o:p></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"><i style="">Yes, but one of the views is firmly founded in observable facts (that would be the science), while the other is based on belief/faith (that would be the theology). For you to equalize those two views shows a profound lack of knowledge and understanding of what science is.<br /></i></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"><a href="http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/d_james_kennedy_and_the_foulness_of_the_religious_right/P25/">Click here to read the blog and comments</a><br /><i style=""><o:p></o:p></i></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p face="georgia" style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">What this person doesn't understand is that speculation cannot, by its very nature, be the confirmation science requires to establish any notion as a scientific 'fact'. Just because an idea sounds really good isn't an acceptable reason to call it a 'fact'. It would be much more honest to call such a thing a 'working hypothesis'. But militant evolutionists are not content with this, and insist on elevating their theory to a level of credibility it has not yet earned.<br /></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;">“…what the genius of Darwin achieved, surely, was not to discover a host of new facts unknown to his predecessors that somehow added up to the further fact of evolution through natural selection: what he did was to see the facts in a new context – an imaginative context, the context of an idea, but an idea which seemed and seems to many modern minds peculiarly factual, and idea so convincing, so congenial, so satisfying that it feels like fact.”<span style=""> </span>(The Faith of Darwinism, by Marjorie Grene.<span style=""> </span>Encounter Magazine, Nov 1959, Vol XIII, No. 5, pg. 51).</p> <p face="georgia" style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">When you mix one drop of black paint in a bucket of white paint, it might <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">look </span>like it’s pure white, but it’s not.<span style=""> </span>Even if you blend a small amount of speculation with facts, you create something other than facts, even if it "feels like a fact". In the case of evolution (using the paint metaphor), the amount of speculation currently used to buttress the theory would turn a white can of paint to a dark shade of gray.<span style=""> </span>For the evolutionists to say that their speculations are better than the speculations presented by Intelligent Design theorists because theirs are ‘scientific’ and the ID'ers notions are not (oh puleeeeze!) is faulty beyond comprehension, not to mention dishonest. As Grene says, evolution is merely a context for the facts that "seems" so convincing. That's more honest.<br /></p> <p face="georgia" style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">You can't have it both ways. You can't say "evolution is a scientific fact" and then use tons of speculations to back up your claims about how this or that critter allegedly evolved (see my previous post citing Barabara Stahl's comments).<br /></p> <p face="georgia" style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">Marjorie Grene also makes this observation:<br /></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p face="georgia" style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"> </p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;">“…the species theory, like most great forward steps in science, was a triumph of scientific <span style="font-weight: bold;">imagination</span>, rather than of fact collecting." (The Faith of Darwinism, by Marjorie Grene.<span style=""> </span>Encounter Magazine, Nov 1959, Vol XIII, No. 5, pg. 51).</p><p face="georgia" style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">Need I say more on this?<br /></p> <p face="georgia" style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">Secondly, the 'fact' is, the role and significance of speculation required to support any notion of alleged historic evolution can scarcely be overemphasized. It is THE essential ingredient in nearly every story of the evolutionary history of any species. It is the glue for all evolutionary scenarios that are honestly presented, and if you read any descriptions of the evidence for evolution carefully, this will become obvious time and time again. Because laced within those descriptions is what I call the 'language of speculation', where the facts we don't know about are replaced with conjectural language links such as "must have been", "experts agree", "most certainly", "undoubtedly", "probably", etc. etc.. Without massive doses of such terminology, there would be no recounting of any alleged evolutionary event. How then, can such stories, riddled with specuative comments, be so widely accepted as 'facts' or 'evidence' in favor of evolution? How can they become regarded as indisputable evidence?<br /></p> <p face="georgia" style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">The answer is obvious: If you are predisposed to believe in evolution - then the stories sound convincing and congenial and so believable that they "feel like fact". Few people seem willing to stand up and make the distinction that speculations are not sufficient to require a wholesale acceptance of evolutionary theory. Those who do so, no matter how impressive their credentials may be, are typically either shot down, marginalized, or ignored. So much for the freedom to dissent.<br /></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p face="georgia" style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">No, I’m sorry, speculation is speculation – period. The best a speculation can be is a working hypothesis. And please, don't call it a 'fact', because it just isn't. The act of creation isn’t subject to scientific testing any more than any of the alleged historic evolutionary events are. So if we’re going to teach our kids a set of evolutionary speculations, then we ought to be allowed to teach them about ID speculations as well.<br /></p><p face="georgia" style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">Thirdly, and as I've mentioned elsewhere - there are clear dangers associated with promiting just one version of reality. While there's nothing at all wrong with using speculation to propose ideas in science - this is how science often advances - that's not what's going on here. We've gone well beyond that with evolution. We've allowed an idea - a clearly speculation-ridden idea no less - to become anchored in our cultural psyche to such an extent that backing away from it at this point would be perceived by many as unthinkable. That fact alone ought to give real scientists pause to consider whether the theory is more orthodoxy than science.<br /></p> <p face="georgia" style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">One of the dangers of this dogged adherence to ideas that remain unsupported by data is that it guides the interpretation of future discoveries, often erroneously. David Pilbeam, a world reknown paleoanthropologist, in a rare admission of making such errors, recounts how he to to revise his presuppositions when he discovered that his data did not fit them. He admits that he had to re-train himself to properly evaluate the fossils he found, and discovered that his evolutionary presuppositions were leading him astray, adding:<br /></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; font-style: italic; font-family: georgia;">"I know that, at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data: Witness the transitions from "man the weapon-wielder" to "man the tool-maker" to "the naked ape" to "man the linguist" to "man the manipultor", and so on. Presumably, we are still so influenced". (Rearranging Our Family Tree, By David Pilbeam. Human Nature, June -1978) </p> <p face="georgia" style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">Pilbeam isn't the only person who has made this observation. Harvard College professor James Conant opined that:<br /></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; font-style: italic; font-family: georgia;">"We have already seen that many scientific ideas have become so deeply embedded in our everday view of the world that we find it difficult to draw the line between conceptual schemes and matters of fact. What were once working hypotheses on a grand scale and later became new conceptual schemes are now almost universally accepted as being descriptions of reality". (Science and Common Sense, By James Conant. Yale University Press, 10th Printing, July 1964, pg. 262)<br /></p> <p face="georgia" style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">So, it's not a stretch to say that it is <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">speculations</span> that set the tone for much of what today passes for established evolutionary 'fact'.<br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">So, it really doesn't help much when I hear things like "if we teach our kids Intelligent Design theory or speculations, we will send science plunging back into the dark ages”.<span style=""> </span>No we won’t - that's just another speculation - with about as much basis in fact as anything else the evolutionists have to say.<span style=""><br /></span></p> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">Besides, we have a TON of ID scientists and educators who have made incredible scientific contributions to our culture – take Dr. C. Everett Koop (reknown for his life-saving surgical techniques) and Dr. Damadian (inventor of the MRI) for example.<span style=""> </span>These guys are creationists, and they have demonstrated that they are perfectly able to function in a scientific environment.<br /></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Most creationists understand and appreciate the way good science works - and they recognize the same scientific evidence that the evolutionist works with. Yes, you heard me right. When it comes to scientific 'facts', most creationists are in nearly complete agreement with evolutionists. It's only in their <span style="font-style: italic;">interpretations </span>of those facts that they differ. And those interpretations, which are often nothing more than speculations, are the 'facts' evolutionists refer to, and that must be presented as 'science' to our kids. I'm not knocking speculation - it's a necessary part of science. But I'm also not confused by thinking that speculations are scientific 'facts' or data. That would be like saying orange juice and water are the same. </span><br /></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; font-style: italic;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">G.A. Kerkut, biochemistry professor at the <st1:place st="on"><st1:placetype st="on">University</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename st="on">Southampton</st1:placename></st1:place>: "The philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified... Whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature". (cited in Biology, Keith Graham et al, A Beka Book Publications, Pensacola, FL,1986, </span><span style="font-size:100%;">p.363 </span> <span style="font-size:100%;">)</span></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal"><br />To establish anything as a ‘fact’ of science, you need to be able to set up a repeatable and falsifiable test for it.<span style=""> </span>This is simply not possible for historic evolutionary events because they occurred in the distant past, and are therefore not subject to such testing. All of which leaves us with the art of conjecture, extrapolation, guesswork, inference, and imagination. And design is as reasonable an inference from the facts as evolution seems to be for many folks. You don't need to be 'religious' to make this observation.<br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">So – no one can credibly claim that ANY alleged evolutionary event in the past is a ‘scientific fact’ – period.<span style=""> That's because we can't go back in time and observe what happened. The best we can do is propose evolutionary possibilities, which, as everyone knows, are not the same as 'facts'. </span>Anyone who knows anything about science understands this.<span style=""> </span>Except the evolutionists.<span style=""> </span>“Oh, not so fast!” they proclaim.<span style=""> </span>“Of course we can’t prove evolution historically, but we know it happened because we can prove evolution is occurring today”.<o:p></o:p></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">I’m sorry – time to push the NAAAAA! (wrong answer) button.<br /></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">First of all, even though many admit to micro-evolutionary events occurring today, this would NOT require us to accept that macro-evolutionary events occurred in the past. It might seem to be a logical deduction, but it's a logical fallacy nevertheless. Micro-evolution does not demonstrate macro-evolution. And, making this assumption does harm to the scientific enterprise.<br /></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; font-style: italic; font-family: georgia;">"...the sciences dealing with the past stand before the bar of common sense on a different footing. Therefore, a grotesque account of a period of some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient; the result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science". (Science and Common Sense, By James Conant. Yale University Press, 10th Printing, July 1964, pg. 278)</p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p>Secondly, since the small micro-evolutionary events we see today are not conclusive evidence, using them as evidence of the greater macro-evolutionary paradigm is a leap of faith no different than what the Intelligent Design (ID) theorist proposes (i.e., that a Creator is responsible for all life based on the apparent design observed in nature).<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">And besides, these micro-evolutionary events, when left to occur on their own, typically don’t show us what we need to see in a case of true ‘evolution’, i.e., we don’t see the formation of <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">new </span>genetic information.<span style=""> </span>What we see is a re-shuffling of <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">existing </span>genetic information, which is generally nothing more than plumbing the depths of variation within a species – all of which are normal, non-evolutionary events. It all comes down to just another example of what Marjorie Grene said: evolution is an "...idea so convincing, so congenial, so satisfying that it feels like fact." <o:p></o:p></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">On the other hand, the ID theorists argue that life appears to be far too complex to have evolved by chance – showing evidence of design (from a Grand Designer).<span style=""> </span>This observastion can be made without reference to any chapter and verse in a religious text. The concept of design isn't inextricably linked to the realm of 'religion', otherwise why not ban the teaching of architecture, computer programming, and a host of other academic and practical disciplines where design is readily applied? But 'Oh No', say many evolutionists, 'we simply can't allow the teaching of design in the realm of biology because <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">that </span>notion, in the context of the life sciences, is inherently religious'.</p><p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">Give me a break. No, it is <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">not</span>. Saying that there is a Designer is no more or less "religious" than adamantly saying that there can be no such Designer - from a scientific perspective. The decision about which set of speculations our kids choose to believe is better left for them to decide - and everyone should be free to carry that with them into whatever field of scienctific endeavor they may choose. This should be true, at least in America of all places, where we are guaranteed to have freedom of thought (except, and rightly so, when it comes to planning a Terrorist attack). It's interesting that one of the key arguments promoted during the Scopes trial (an effort to allow the teaching of evolution in our schools) was to let our children examine all of the facts - but now that they are in the catbird seat, I think it's notable that so many evolutionists don't feel this is a valid argument anymore.<br /></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; font-style: italic; font-family: georgia;">"...For God's sake, let the children have their minds kept open - close no doors to their knowledge; shut no door from them...". (Dudley Field Malone, attorney for John Scopes, during the Scopes trial. The World's Most Famous Court Trial. 3rd Edition, 1925, pg. 187)</p> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">So much for the consistency of the evolutionsts. It's interesting how this argument, which they used to gain a foothold in the American educational system, holds no merit whatsoever for them today. This appeal to reason for mutual consideration of Creation and Evolution has shifted today to a different tune - that of exclusivity. Many evolutionists would no more countenance including the idea of ID in our schools than they would consider retracting any of the key tenets of Darwinism.<br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">Well, I don’t have to go to the Bible or the Koran to see the sensibility in the notion of a Designer for the universe, so I doubt that it will turn any of our kids into religious fanatics anymore than designing a quilt or building a house would – and it can hardly be considered a case of introducing religion into our schools. Just because an idea is consistent with a religious concept doesn't mean our kids are going to convert to Christianity or Judaism, anymore than our kids are going to become terrorists because they learn about terrorism.<br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">This approach is also no different than saying that because there's a lot of talk about sex in the Bible, we shouldn't teach our kids about it because it's a 'religious' concept.<br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">Like I said, give me a break.<br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">What we're really witnessing is an extreme reluctance (refusal) by many evolutionary scientists to consider the possibility that the facts could indicate a Creator. This is a deliberate choice, and is not based on that quaint and oft-used remark "science cannot address anything regarding religious matters". I agree - science can't do that. But that statement skirts around what science <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">can </span>lead us up to - the point of understanding the possibility that life was created, without addressing the nature, mind, or intent of that creator. So you see, the notion of a Creator is not inherently 'religious' in and of itself. You can examine arguments that indicate a Creator acted on nature without saying one thing about why he might have done so. <o:p></o:p></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">So – I have a solution - and a suggestion for what I think we need to do.<span style=""> </span>I say that both sides need to present their perspective to our kids <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">agnostically</span>.<span style=""> </span>No evangelism allowed.<span style=""> </span>Both sides stick with the 'scientific facts' and speculations, and state their interpretations of the evidence in non-religious terms. This is really and truly the only credible way to resolve this dispute.<span style=""> </span>If the evidence for evolution is as compelling as the evolutionists say it is – then they should have no fear of putting their idea up against any other challenges that might come along (and Intelligent Design appears to be the only serious contender…). <span style=""> </span>In fact, evolutionists should see this as a great opportunity to let the ‘facts’ speak for themselves.<span style=""> </span>After all, if the evidence is so overwhelming, this should be a slam dunk, right? The only caveat I would add is that honesty must prevail.<span style=""> </span>This means that where we can’t claim that something is a scientific fact, we don’t do it. <o:p></o:p></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">The facts are this – there were critters roaming the earth ages ago that are no longer around. <span style=""> </span>Those are the facts, period.<span style=""> We have fossils of those critters - and those are also facts. Both evolutionists and creationists accept this factual evidence. </span>Science cannot ever ever tell us where they came from, how they got here, or how they allegedly evolved because all of that is purely a matter of speculation – period.<span style=""> </span>You can say that scientists are offering us their educated guesses – and that would be honest.<span style=""> </span>But when someone says that what is necessarily a conjecture about evolution is the same as scientific 'fact', and that the ‘scientific evidence that establishes historic evolution as a fact’ - this is pure horse hooey.<o:p></o:p></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">On a stick.<o:p></o:p></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">All you need to do is read books like the one written by Barbara J. Stahl and you can clearly see that this is the case (see my earlier post from this week directly below).<br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">Evolutionists are caught in a straitjacket constrained by vast amounts of time which makes it impossible for them to ever observe alleged evolutionary events of the past. This means that any and all historical evolutionary events are necessarily and forever constrained to the realm of working hypotheses (speculations), which means they can never ever hope to become established scientific facts - only dogma. And, since this is the case, there is ample cause to hear the speculations of IDers.<br /></p> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia;"> </div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; font-style: italic; font-family: georgia;">"...The fundamental inherent difficulty in the study of evolution is, that this great natural process involves time dimensions of a magnitude quite out of proportion to the duration of human life or even to the sum of human experience, and the observer has therefore to rely on indirect, or circumstantial evidence. Hence beliefs that are often referred to as theories of evolution are, more accurately, only working hypotheses. This is a very important matter because the essence of a hypothesis is that it is an opinion suggested by the available evidence, but not one which precludes the possibility of some alternative. A hypotheis may well be substantiated when more corroborative details are forthcoming, but until then there is no logical reason for excluding the consideration of some other explanation of the facts. So, while it may be justifiable to believe that evolution affords a reasonable explanation of the facts of nature, it is not justifiable tomaintain that no other explanation is possible or permissible". (Features of Evolution in the Flowering Plants, By Ronald Good. Dover, 1974, pg. 2)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><o:p style="font-family: georgia;"></o:p><span style="font-family:georgia;">So – let’s allow our kids to study both sides of this controversy, but let’s also be honest and make the clear distinction between scientific fact and speculation.</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> Historic evolution isn’t a ‘fact’ – and it can never be scientifically established as such.</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family:georgia;">It's conjecture about what many people think happened, and </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >nothing more</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">. And anyone who tells you different either doesn’t understand how science works, is blinded to a belief in their preconceptions, or is being dishonest. Either way, none of these reasons are compelling enough to require our children to be told that evolution is the only viable or credible 'scientific' explanation. Using the banner of science to promote speculations as scientific 'facts' - now </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >that's </span><span style="font-family:georgia;">dishonest.</span> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/16676214-112691978574488337?l=crevoblog.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Kevin Wirthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11906182877964319631noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16676214.post-1126612631796118202005-09-13T04:18:00.001-07:002005-09-16T18:46:00.363-07:00By Kevin Wirth <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">One of the things many evolutionists are fond of saying is: “Hey – we don’t know exactly HOW evolution occurred in many instances, but, we know it MUST HAVE occurred.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p></o:p>What’s most amazing about all this is that so many of them seem to overlook the fact that they are putting the cart before the horse, not to mention asserting a dogmatism that they often deride the creationists for holding to.<span style=""> </span>Finally, when they do this, they step outside the realm of science.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p>There a broad assumption in place among evolutionists that all of life evolved, and that we are now on a quest to understand how it all happened.<span style=""> </span>Questions about “did life evolve” are not being asked or challenged (unless you want to ruin your career, lose your chance at grad school, or your nice professorial office) – the only really relevant avenue of inquiry left for us now (we are told) are the “how did it happen?” questions.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p></o:p>Speaking from a purely scientific perspective, this approach holds about as much water as a vegetable colander. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">How can someone assert that all life evolved if they can’t even imagine how it even happened in most instances?<span style=""> </span>It’s important to note at this point that it’s one thing to make broad, sweeping generalizations about the “fact” of evolution, but quite another to dig in and take a look at what we really know about how it occurred in specific instances.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Finally, there is the matter of historical verification.<span style=""> </span>Science cannot speak authoritatively to historic, non-repeatable events any more than the Christian can scientifically prove the Bible’s claim that that the sun stood still, or that Jesus restored sight to the blind.<span style=""> </span>Both are matters of faith.<span style=""> </span>While many scientists claim that historic evolutionary events are scientifically verifiable while the events in the life of Christ aren’t, the fact of the matter is, neither are.<span style=""> </span>But, we are told that if science can establish the evolution of life today, then that must mean that evolution is the mechanism that brought life into being in the past.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I say, not so fast.<span style=""> </span><br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Though it may seem logical to extrapolate from current alleged evolutionary events that evolution has always been the mechanism that created the diversity of life throughout aeons of the past, we still have a problem.<span style=""> </span>And the problem is this: we are still speculating.<span style=""> </span>What if evolutionary events observed today are really nothing more than just the reshuffling of information in existing gene pools?<span style=""> </span>Far too many instances of ‘evolution’ are in fact nothing more than this.<span style=""> </span>We have not observed the generation of multitudes of new genetic information in alleged instances of observed evolutionary events – just a re-assembly of pre-existing genetic data.<span style=""> </span>Evolution, however, requires the creation of <i style=""><u>new</u></i> genetic information, not just a reshuffling of old data.<span style=""> </span>Even if I could take the genes from a mouse and somehow rearrange them so that I created a critter that looks like a kangaroo – it would not be evidence for evolution because a) an intelligence did the re-arranging and b) no new genetic data was introduced.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="">W</span>ith just a little bit of research, many are surprised to learn that instead of convincing evidence for evolution, what we find instead is a super-abundance of speculation holding together one evolutionary presumption after another together.<span style=""> </span>I use the word ‘presumption’ carefully, because this is what a close reading of the evidence (at least, the evidence presented by honest scientists working on the front lines) clearly demonstrates.<span style=""> </span>When you get past the pontifications of modern-day philosophic defenders of the evolutionary faith such as Huxley, Gould, Dawkins and others, and look more closely at the evidence, you will see that the use of speculation, extrapolation, and assumption is consistently used to describe alleged evolutionary events.<span style=""> </span>Such speculations are, as I have said elsewhere, the glue that holds evolutionary ‘evidence’ together.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Is there anything wrong with using speculation in science to help us try and understand what happened in the past?<span style=""> </span>Absolutely not.<span style=""> </span>Science thrives on imagination and speculation – it often leads us into a better understanding of the world we live in.<span style=""> </span>Many times we can only understand the actual by first anticipating the possible.<span style=""> </span>But, and this <b style=""><i style="">IS</i></b> an important “but”, when we have no way of verifying an actual event (ie, how animals allegedly evolved in the past), science requires that we not make the jump from ‘speculation’ to ‘fact’.<span style=""> </span>Unfortunately, this is <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">precisely </span>what acceptance of historic evolution requires.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Let there be no equivocation on this point.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">If you can’t demonstrate something with a test, then it can’t be scientifically verifiable, period.<span style=""> </span>Which places it outside the realm of practical science.<span style=""> </span>Even if you <i style="">can</i> demonstrate that an evolutionary event <span style="font-style: italic;">might</span> have occurred historically, this doesn’t mean that the event <i style="">did</i> occur in whatever manner you might conceive.<span style=""> </span>That’s because historical events are not subject to scientific scrutiny – they can <i style=""><u>only</u></i> be inferred, and such inferences hardly qualify as a 'fact' of science. This is one reason why it’s perfectly legitimate to define evolution as a hypothesis or a theory, not as a fact.<span style=""> </span>Those who insist on referring to historical evolutionary events as facts are, unfortunately, sorely mistaken and uninformed.<span style=""> Such events can never be </span>more than inferences, speculations, or conjecture - a far cry from 'fact'.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The fossil evidence is often assumed to have already demonstrated the evolution for so much of life that many have come to view <i style=""><u>all</u></i> fossils as <i style=""><u>evidence for evolution</u></i>, even before any evolutionary lineage has been established.<span style=""> </span>While it’s indisputable that fossils are evidence of critters that once lived, it is another matter altogether to assume that they all point to some form of evolution.<span style=""> </span>This distinction is an important one to make, especially as we take a closer look at what we really know about the evolution of almost anything vertebrate (for example).<span style=""> </span>Because when we do take that closer look, what we find in one instance after another is a surprisingly consistent picture of <span style="font-style: italic;">what we don’t know</span>, rather than what many of us may have assumed we would know by now.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p></o:p>For example, in the case of vertebrate evolution, we have the following comments from Barbara J. Stahl, author of <b style=""><i style="">Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution</i></b>.<b style=""><i style=""><span style=""> </span></i></b>It’s important to keep in mind here that Stahl bases her comments on the work of some of the best and most respected science professionals in the various fields she has investigated.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b style=""><span style="font-size:14;">ORIGIN OF FISHES<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">One would think that by now, especially since most of the fossils on the planet are of marine life, we would have clearly established the forerunners of fishes.<span style=""> </span>But such is not the case at all, according to Stahl (and many others).<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><i style="">“The origin of all these fishes is obscure.<span style=""> </span>As has been shown earlier, it is not possible to demonstrate unequivocally the descent of any group of the higher fishes from a specific stock of placoderms or acanthodians.” (pg. 126)<o:p> </o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><i style="">“There seems to be as little chance of tracing the origin of the paleoniscoids as any other kind of fishes, but investigators </i><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">speculate </span></i><i style="">on the matter, nevertheless.”<span style=""> </span>(pg. 151)<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="font-size:14;">FISH TO AMPHIBIAN<br /></span></b>This is what we think we know about the evolution of fishes into tetrapods:</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><i style="">“It has long been obvious that of all the Devonian fishes the rhipidistians were the most likely </i><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">most likely</span></i><i style=""> to have produced the first vertebrates that could live for substantial periods on land.” <span style=""> </span>(pg. 147)<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Well then, what about the actual evidence from the rhipidistians?</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><i style="">“Paleontologists are quite certain of the relationship between rhipidistians and the amphibians </i><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">even though they have not discovered</span></i><i style=""> the animals intermediate between the finned and limbed forms.<span style=""> </span>The remains of the oldest tetrapods in their collections leave no doubt about the derivation of the axial skeleton from fishes of the rhipidistian group. Since the fossil material provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from fish to tetrapod, paleontologists have had to </i><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">speculate</span></i><i style=""> how legs and aerial breathing evolved and why a group of fishes produced forms that habituated themselves little by little to life on land” (pg. 194-95)<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">One would think that the evidence for evolution would be so overwhelming by now on this point.<span style=""> </span>Stahl notes later that…</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; font-style: italic;">“Despite their failure to find animals with appendages of an intermediate type, investigators still believed that rhipidistian fins were the <i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">most likely</span></i> precursors for the legs of land animals.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">So, is the notion of the transition of amphibians to land animals based on evidence, or speculation? Seems pretty clear to me.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">There you have it – evolution without evidence.<span style=""> </span>We <i style=""><u>know</u></i> it happened, we just don’t know how… yet.<span style=""> </span>Stay tuned – we <i style=""><u>will</u></i> figure it out eventually.<span style=""> </span>In the meantime – we expect you to accept our pronouncement that evolution is a fact! And if you are a student and <span style="font-style: italic;">don't</span> agree with that view, you will most likely be 'branded' (as professors Dini and Patterson have advocated) so that your academic future can be closely scrutized and eventually derailed for not towing the evolutionary line. But that's a topic for another blog...<span style=""><br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">To make the transition from fishes to amphibians requires much more than just turning a fin into a foot.<span style=""> </span>A host of other specialized changes that would be required include a) modification of sensory organs, b) mechanisms to protect the body from dessication, c) the development of lungs, etc.<span style=""> </span>For these changes, paleontologists also do not have a definitive answer – just (yep – you guessed it!) more speculation.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><i style="">“…determining the time and the order in which the required structural changes took place is a more </i><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">speculative</span></i><i style=""> matter.<span style=""> </span>Although many of the modifications were correlated and so must have occurred simultaneously, paleontologists are not certain of how much alteration took place…<span style=""> </span>(pg. 199)<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Here’s what we know about the evolution of salamanders and frogs, for example.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><i style=""><o:p></o:p>“Workers are aware that their picture of the ancient amphibian community is </i><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">extrapolated</span></i><i style=""> from the small and perhaps not entirely representative sample of fossil forms they have gathered…but they feel, nevertheless, that they understand the broad trends in the history of these early tetrapods.” <span style=""> </span>(pg. 228)<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><i style="">“The lack of fossil specimens intermediate between anurans or urodeles [i.e., salamanders and newts] and the older amphibians has forced paleontologists and students of the living animals to base their </i><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">speculations</span></i><i style=""> about the evolution of the group upon evidence from the anatomy and embryology of modern species.<span style=""> </span>This approach has presented difficulties that have so far proved insurmountable.<span style=""> </span>The structure of the existing amphibians is so specialized that the more generalized condition from which it derived is almost completely obscured.”<span style=""> </span>(pg. 241)<o:p> </o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><i style="">“…the history of the urodeles is even more obscure than that of the frogs” (pg. 248)<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p>Do 'broad trends' offer the kind of evidence required to establish evolution as a 'fact'? Hardly. Note that scientists have not been able to find (or identify) the precursors to frogs, and even when they try to extrapolate backwards (or, re-engineer), what they find is that they can’t.<span style=""> </span>Why?<span style=""> </span>Because frogs are too “specialized”, which simply means that they are so unlike more “primitive” or so-called "early" amphibians that any honest scientist recognizes that such speculation would be challenged at every turn.<span style=""> And </span>when experts <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">have </span>speculated on what the likely characteristics of a proto-frog would be, there are no corresponding fossils known (pg. 243). Does that mean such fossils don't exist? No - it means we don't have them yet - and until we do - then we have no business <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">requiring </span>others to adopt the view that amphibians evolved from anything.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="font-size:14;">AMPHIBIAN TO REPTILE<br /></span></b>Then there is the problem of the amphibian-reptile transition…</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><i style="">“One of the most difficult tasks faced by paleontologists who investigate reptilian history is distinguishing the first reptiles from the amphibians among which they lived…transitional forms especially constitute a problem in classification.” (pg. 258)<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">In fact, one of the key problems of distinguishing amphibians from reptiles (the bone structures of both amphibians transitioning into alleged reptilian critters is evidently not so easy to distinguish…but the notion that this is because there may not <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">be </span>any transitionals is evidently out of the question…) is determining the jump from amphibian to reptilian eggs.<span style=""> </span>In fact, the evolution of the first reptilian egg has caused great consternation among evolutionists since the idea of evolution was first proposed.<span style=""> </span>Yet, we are no less certain today concerning it’s origin than when we began.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><i style=""><o:p></o:p>“It is easier to understand the stages by which the reptiles evolved temporal fenestrae and other distinguishing skeletal characteristics than to imagine the steps that led to the development of the “land egg.”<span style=""> </span>Paleontologists continue to </i><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">speculate</span></i><i style=""> </i><i style="">upon the way in which the enclosure of the embryo came about, however, because the matter is central to the broad question of reptilian origins.<span style=""> </span>Study of the eggs laid by living reptiles has provided little insight into the evolution of the extraembryonic structures which gave protoreptiles their first advantage over other tetrapods.<span style=""> </span>Rather than recapitulating the process of its evolution, the ‘land egg’ develops in a specialized manner derived, no doubt, by abbreviation and reordering of an earlier procedure” (pg. 268)<o:p> </o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><i style="">…Szarski, Romer, and many other paleontologists believe that the common possession of the “land egg” identifies reptiles as a monophyletic group.<span style=""> </span>Since the development of the “land egg” involved such a long and complicated series of interdependent genetic mutations, it is highly improbable, they argue, that it evolved more than once.<span style=""> </span>They find it </i><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">reasonable to assume</span></i><i style=""> that all reptiles, despite their diversity, descended from the single amphibian line in which the “land egg” appeared.” (pg. 268, 271)<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><i style="">“The origin of the ichthyosaurs is a problem which remains wholly unresolved.” (pg. 297)<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><i style="">“Until remains of animals closer in age to Proganochelys are found, paleontologists can say nothing about the establishment of the body form which has sustained the turtles from the Triassic period to modern times.” (pg. 289)<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="display: none;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Stahl’s comment about the ancestors of turtles bears repeating here as well…</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><i style=""><o:p></o:p>“If sufficient fossil material were available, paleontologists think that the turtles [chelonians, generally] would be traceable …almost directly to the early cotylosaurs.<span style=""> </span>Because turtles enter the record in a nearly modern state in the Triassic period, <span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">the supposition rests on inferences</span> from the anatomy of their skull rather than on evidence of known transitional forms.”<span style=""> </span>(pg. 284-85)<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Need I say more?<span style=""> </span>Yes? OK then…here’s more.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b style=""><span style="font-size:14;">REPTILE TO BIRD<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">While many discoveries of birds (especially in <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>) have been made in recent years, how they allegedly evolved from reptiles continues to remain a mystery.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">One of the key attributes of birds are their feathers.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Here is what Stahl has to say:</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><i style=""><span style=""> </span>“It is not difficult to imagine how feathers, once evolved, assumed additional functions, but how they arose initially, presumably from reptilian scales, defies analysis…<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><i style="">The problem [ie, evolution of feathers] has been set aside, not for want of interest, but for </i><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">lack of evidence</span></i><i style="">.<span style=""> </span>No fossil structure transitional between scale and feather is known, and recent investigators are unwilling to found a theory on pure </i><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">speculation</span></i><i style=""> [note by KW: and why not?<span style=""> </span>They freely speculate about everything else?].<span style=""> </span>Their </i><i style=""><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;">supposition</span></i><i style=""> </i><i style="">that feathers were derived from the scales of reptiles is based upon the fact that both are nonliving, keratinized structures…” (pgs. 349, 350)<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">She goes on to say that there are “no hint of primitive feathers” known.<span style=""> </span>Yet, scientists are <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">certain </span>that birds evolved from reptiles. Again, it's a case of evolution without evidence.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">But what about other factors? She continues with comments such as:</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><i style="">“How temperature control gradually manifested itself as the birds evolved remains unknown….Studying the development of temperature control in young birds just after hatching has been recommended…[however] The value of this kind of research is also questionable…because ontogeny is now recognized as an unreliable guide to phylogeny…The hope that different thermoregulative abilities would be discovered in adult birds, permitting the construction of a graded series of stages approximating the evolutionary ones, has proved unavailing” (pg. 357)<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Elsewhere, she says:</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><i style="">“When investigators turn from the study of modern birds to the fossil record for information about avian evolution, they find their research severely limited by the scarcity of informative remains.” (pg. 362)<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The bottom line here is: we don’t have enough evidence to deduce anything conclusive about the origin of birds.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p>...</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p>I'm going to stop here... because even though Stahl continues on in this vein as she discusses the evolution of other types of critters, I think you get the idea. If you want to read more, I suggest you order a copy of her book and read it.<br /></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p>So the next time someone tells you that evolution is based on the "empirical evidence", you can politely correct them by saying "no, it is based on empirical evidence AND LOTS OF SPECULATION". That would be <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">far </span>more accurate.<br /></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b style=""><span style="font-size:14;">Resources:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Stahl, Barbara J.<span style=""> </span><i style=""><u>Vertebrate History – Problems in Evolution</u></i>. <st1:place st="on"><st1:city st="on">Dover</st1:city></st1:place> Books, NY (1985), 604 pp.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/16676214-112661263179611820?l=crevoblog.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Kevin Wirthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11906182877964319631noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16676214.post-1126597921514836982005-09-13T00:48:00.000-07:002005-09-18T23:10:34.086-07:00<div style="text-align: justify;">Welcome, and thanks for stopping by Kev's CREVO Korner. I'll be posting comments here related to the Creation-Evolution (CREVO) debate that I hope you find vital to a better appreciation of this important issue. This blog is intended for educational purposes only.<br /></div> <p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">Kev's CREVO Korner is designed to address some of the critical issues surrounding the Creation-Evolution (CREVO) debate in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> and the west.<span style=""> </span>Evolution is largely presented as an established fact in the majority of our academic and scientific institutions, and this in turn has created a climate of intellectual repression against those who disagree with evolution, and it has reached the point where many dissenters experience severe and unwarranted punishment for holding their views.<span style=""> </span>In short, an open state of discrimination exists against almost anyone who would dare to question evolution in academia and in many fields of scientific endeavor. The manifestions of these abridgements to our freedoms are not yet clearly understood or fully appreciated by the general public, but I intend to make sure they receive substantial notice and comment here.<br /></p> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">There are other critical issues that I will be addressing here from time to time, most notably the degree of speculation that is required to support evolutionary contentions and presuppositions. There is a widely misunderstood aspect of evolution that needs to see much more of the light of day, and that is the extent to which evolution relies heavily on speculation, conjecture, imagination, and guesswork to explain the alleged historical "fact" of evolution. Far too many scientists and educators fail to make the distinction between fact and speculation when they pronounce evolution to be a well-established and credible "fact" of science.<br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">The fact of the matter is this: evolution <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">requires </span>massive does of speculation and conjecture to illustrate almost <span style="font-style: italic;">any </span>historical evolutionary event. Speculation and fact do not = fact, yet this is what is presented to a largely unsuspecting public and more important - judiciary. Educated guesses remain guesswork, no matter how 'educated' they may be. A guess or conjecture will never have the same value as a 'fact', yet this is precisely what many evolutionists would have us agree to. And while Evolution may indeed be "well established", the basis for continuing to make such a claim should ALWAYS be subject to open inspection and investigation at any time.<br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">Unfortunately, far too many are reluctant, and even refuse to do this, which creates a prominent stain on the scientific enterprise. The result of this unfortunate circumstance is that it invites the establishment of dogma, not science. One of my missions in this blog will be to ensure that readers are left with NO DOUBT about the vital role speculation plays in the fabric of alleged historic evolution, and to expose many other aspects of evolutionary antics that the general public will find startling, if not outright alarming.<br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">The scientific and academic community, as is often true of many established instiutions, has failed miserably to police itself adequately in areas where it ought to. Discrimination against evolutionary dissenters is both rampant and widely ignored in America and Great Britain, and threatens protected freedom as never before. Let this blog, therefore, serve as a shot over the bow of intellectual repressors who wage war against such dissenters. Dissent should be freely permitted and in fact, <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">valued </span>within the context of both academia and the scientific enterprise.<br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">Additionally, many in the scientific and academic community have expressed the opinion that the general public is <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">incapable </span>of appreciating the values and merits of many aspects of the CREVO debate - especially if they fail to accept an evolutionary premise as solid, reliable, established fact. I could not disagree more with this ivory-towered, and presumptuous perspective, and instead subscribe to the approach that if a member of the public is ignorant on a topic (which is nothing to be ashamed of...), but desires to become educated, the first step is to provide the public with what is required to help educate them. The scientific and academic community has frequently glossed over, or misunderstood many aspects of the CREVO debate due to their own unwillingness to address key issues, or through their ignorance of them. Many of these shortcomings will become evident in this blog over time<br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal">I also expect that my own perspective will be corrected from time to time, so, everything I have to say here should be viewed in the context of a learning experience. If I think I have made a blunder or mistake, I will admit it, learn from it, and move on.<br /></p> Thank you for reading.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/16676214-112659792151483698?l=crevoblog.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Kevin Wirthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11906182877964319631noreply@blogger.com0