University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

The evolution theory is an irrational falsehood, zealously embraced by atheists, that is a phony conclusion of the 600+ million year fossil record. There is no “valid supporting data” for evolution. In a court of law, or in a public forum, the same evidence that evolutionists would use to try to “prove” the validity of that theory, I would utilize to reveal the truth of Genesis. In order to believe in evolution, you have to purposely ignore certain facts of reality. For example, when you see illustrations of primates being pictured as evolving into humans, it can be shown in a court of law that such a premise is impossible, because certain human and primate traits are different, and could not have ever been shared. The only “common ancestor” that humans and primates share is God Himself.

Current Creationism has refused to teach the truth of the Genesis text, and either teaches foolishness (young Earth), or false doctrines (non-literal reading of the text). Creationists thoughtlessly try to prove “Creationism”, rather than seeking and teaching the truth of Genesis. How can an untruth, ever prove another lie, to be in error? You can’t do it. That is why Creationism fails. It essentially is also a lie, and should be discarded, even by Bible believers.

The correct opposing view to evolution is the "Observations of Moses", which conveys the truth of Genesis chapter one. It is the ONLY true rendition of the Hebrew text. Everything else, unfortunately, is false and foolish interpretations of scripture.

Those that imply that God used evolution are infidels at worse, or clowns at best, that refuse to learn the truth of Genesis. The truth has been available for more than 18 years. Such a discussion is currently silly, and shows stubbornness against learning the truth of God's Word.

There are no "creation stories" in Genesis. In fact, about all of theology and creationism have no idea what Moses was writing about. You can't simply take an advanced book of math or science, and try to read from it on your own without personal instruction.

For example, Genesis declares that mankind has been on this Earth, in his present likeness, for more than 60 million years. The "male and female" in Genesis chapter one was not "Adam & Eve". Has modern science discovered that yet?

Herman Cummings ephraim7@aol.com

• Upvote 0
• Posted by hzcummi on February 19, 2012 at 7:55 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

1. Atheists are not the only ones who believe in evolution.
2. Your fleeting misunderstanding of all things genetic is incredible. Under your theory, I can not be the son of my mother or father because I have lighter red hair, while both of them have dark brunette hair.
3. An untruth can prove another lie to be in error. It is very common, in fact. In poker, we call it a "bluff."
4. Don't you think that it borders on sacrilege to imply that YOU, among a select few, are so close to G-d that only YOU understand His plan? You lift yourself up to be His prophet as though G-d has never spoken to or through others. What makes you so special? Be careful - the book of Revelation teaches us to abhor and avoid "false prophets." Certainly anybody who says "I know G-d's plan" puts himself on G-d's level. That, dear friend, is the greatest heresy of all.
5. Where does it say that G-d does NOT use evolution in any religious text anywhere? If your contention is that G-d CANNOT use evolution, then you presuppose G-d is finite and no G-d at all. If your contention is that G-d DOES NOT use evolution, then what is your evidence? Can it be denied that G-d gave mankind a mind to think for themselves? That G-d gave mankind free will? That G-d gave mankind a physical universe to occupy? Do you disagree that G-d gave us gravity that was only discovered through the scientific process?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by temerson on February 20, 2012 at 6:06 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

http://cjonline.com/interact/blog/contra_mundum/2010-05-19/two_religions_evolution_versus_christianity

• Upvote 0
• Posted by mellotron on February 20, 2012 at 6:37 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

Can we invite Ben Stein on campus to speak?

I always liked this joke by Stein; God and a scientist were walking on the beach. The scientist said that creation was truly a great thing but there were some flaws in the design. The scientist asked God to demonstrate creation and then he would do the same but only better. God took a pile of sand and created a mound, God then blew on the sand and it became a man. The scientist clapped and then said watch me. He took a pile of sand and which point God interjected, "get your own sand". The point is that even with evolution you have to start with something. Where did that something come from? If you say it was microbes brought to this planet by a meteor or aliens then where did the meteor or aliens come from? The point is for me, I don't know and science does not have all the answers either. ANYONE who says that have the answers rather than faith in a belief is blowing smoke. That includes anyone on either side of the argument. So evolution, like creation, is a faith based belief.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Calvin on February 20, 2012 at 7:22 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

Ben Stein is so ridiculous we might as well invite Snooki to talk about skin cancer.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/ben-stein-says-he-was-fired-for-believing-god-cont,67617/ http://www.avclub.com/articles/expelled-no-intelligence-allowed,2990/

Calvin, saying evolutionary theory ultimately requires faith simply because you lack the depth of scientific education to understand it is like saying that the microprocessors that allow you to post nonsense are no more rationally explainable than magic elves simply because you don't know how those really work either. Utterly laughable.

For one thing, in broader society the word "theory" suggests the beginning of an inquiry, whereas in the scientific community, it is a final achievement, the summit of Everest, and second only to a law in stature. So what's more breathtaking than the summit of Everest? Perhaps hearing you dismiss the mountain of empirical evidence and rigorous research compiled over the past 150 years as a mere "belief" system. But then it's hardly surprising, either.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator

• Upvote 1
• Posted by fiddleback on February 20, 2012 at 9:07 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

Both science and religion begins with our curiosity about life’s origins and nature. First, we observed, then we investigate, next we form our theory, which is the birth of creation and evolution. Science is simply knowledge gained from studying nature. Human’s curiosity about humankind existence is an expansion of our curiosity and is determined by how we see the natural world. The bible says that God separated water from water to created the sky. Genesis chapter 1. Water contains oxygen. The sky is made of oxygen
The Bible says that humankind came from the earth Genesis 1 – proven by science The Bible says that the earth was made from water Genesis 1 and 2 Peter 3:5 proven by science The Bible says all life forms came from the earth Genesis 1- proven by science The Bible says the earth was once a supercontinent Genesis 1 – proven by science The Bible says to asked creation . Job 12;7-12- we asked creation through science . Darwin asked the birds and concluded that life evolved. The Bible says everything was created appropriate for its time Eccl 3:11– proven by science (ecosystem) The Bible says that we were created to subdue the earth and rule over creation. Genesis 1:28 –proven by scientific observation. The bible says that blood is the source of life- proven by science . Blood carries oxygen to our vital organs www.trilogyoforigins .org

• Upvote 0
• Posted by vmossimo on February 20, 2012 at 9:23 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

fiddleback, until any scientific idea can be reproduced, it's a belief system. Until Hawking creates a universe out of nothing, to me it holds only the same weight as a pastor/bishop/priest telling em their beliefs on why we are here. Show me empiracle evidence in a repeateble format that Hawking is correct, and I will agree with you 100% Until then, we are all just guessing and who you believe is only based on which "path" (science or religion) you chose to hold faith in.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Back2School on February 21, 2012 at 8:04 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

This thread already showcases the power of willful denial (a great evolutionary adaptation to help fearful minds keep things simple lest they become disoriented!), and I don’t expect receptivity, but calling this exhaustively reproduced, replicated, and researched triumph of human reason a “belief” system is not only an insult but an intellectually impoverished one at that.

To be clear: In order to have become a theory, this scientific idea has been reproduced and researched about as much as is humanly possible. We are obviously limited to microevolution because macroevolution involves millions of years, but ask most any biologist: the components of this process has been detailed beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because these postings all smack of so much misinformation, I’d be better off just linking to some basic debunking resources:

www.skeptic.com/downloads/top-10-evolution-myths.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution http://www.scienceandreason.net/evol.htm

• Upvote 0
• Posted by fiddleback on February 21, 2012 at 10:43 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

What I find funny about this "debate" is the arrogence on the evolution side of argument. There is no open mind searching for any answers, just a conclusion that is drawn before any arguments made.

I simply admit I do not know the answer fully and will not know until the day I die if my belief system is correct. Anyone who believes strongly on either side has faith that their belief is correct and will use whatever supporting arguments they can to justify why they are right and the other side is wrong, but no one has indeniable proof. None of us will have definitive answers in our lifetimes, so we go on faith. You trusting in the intelligence of scientists (who study what they can empiracally prove) and and I trusting in the knowledge that many others have researched in their lives - combined with my own 40 some years. As I stated earlier, when science can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (will require much more than has been "proven" so far), I will embrace evolution as fact.

fiddleback - you suggest going to a biologist to the answers because they have studied this, Calvin could say go to your priest, they have studied it as well. They each seem to have about the same level of education required for the position - as much as you would like to discount, most clergy are required to have an extensive education. They dedicate their lives to finding similiar answers as well. Since you do not believe that their education is valid you discount everything they have learned and taught mankind -many very good things as well as bad. Just like science.

As I stated earlier, when science can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (will require much more than has been "proven" so far), I will embrace evolution as fact. For me to believe in it, I will require that a universe be created out of nothing (not Hawkins theory of how gravity created the big bang - but the actual container of how everything was here in order for the universe to do that) and have a scientist reproduce the steps that can create life out of nothingness. Take nothing, create the single cell organism, evolve it to a muticelled organism, evolve that into the various plants and animals and then turn that in to humans, in front of my eyes. Not a process similiar to that, but I want to see it actually happen in every exacting step for me to believe.

All I ask for from scientists is the very same empiracle evidence that scientists require to prove the existance of a supreme being.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Back2School on February 21, 2012 at 11:29 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

Back2School, you really ought to look at those links, particularly the last one esp. regarding comparing priests and scientists (doesn't get much more apples-and-oranges than that, btw). With your requiring scientists to recreate of all life including its evolution, you know you're asking for something utterly impossible, and then use that as an excuse to maintain an overly mystical attitude. You could instead take the time to educate yourself as to how most everything that can be confirmed has been, and how those findings make a macroevolution not only plausible but the only rational game in town.

To instead focus on what can never be fully demonstrated, and then therefore hide from the mammoth amount that is rationally understood, is quite common but nonetheless intellectual cowardice at its finest. Theists who accept the science have already shown that you can keep your magic man in the sky/deep space, but the more you learn, the less you can deny what is a fundamental and integrating principle of modern biology.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by fiddleback on February 21, 2012 at 12:14 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

I actually did read the links you provided; I am a seeker of knowledge in all forms. “Faith means putting an end to skepticism” from the last article shows how little the writer understands of true faith. This condescending statement is written from a viewpoint of ignorance and reveals the authors true motive. They have an agenda to dis-prove religion; they are not an unbiased observer. I could go further but no need to dwell on a tangent.

Every person I have ever gone to church with is skeptical. True faith is tested every single day. What I have come to understand in my own lifetime is that if I follow the precepts of my faith, I am justly rewarded. I have been a skeptic and continue to be at times, but faith is gained as you see the results from your own personal tests. This to me is a more valid experience than reading what someone else has written in a book about their own experiences.

I have seen several rational science beliefs that are totally ignorant and have been recanted in human history. Remember when scientists believed the world was flat? Remember when leeches were scientific medicine? Or that the Earth was thought to be the center of the universe? All of these were considered rational thought at the time. This is part of the reason why I put little respect into what others around me consider “rational thought”. I value my own experiences more than what others say.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Back2School on February 21, 2012 at 1:17 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

Whale evolution?

I think not.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Savage on February 21, 2012 at 1:26 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

Read the whole thing. If you would stop because of the quote, “faith means putting an end to skepticism” you should know that you’re probably projecting an unfair meaning and missing the full logic of what he’s offering. That quote is not saying that believers don’t personally wrestle with doubt; it means that if you defer to your faith more often than not, and are satisfied with “God willed it into being somehow”, that is an impediment to further rational or scientific inquiry.

You should also realize that if you’re saying you trust your own experiences over more advanced knowledge, you’re wide open to the criticism of treating yourself to the benefits of such advanced knowledge while only cherry-picking what you accept as scientifically true, i.e. using your computer or cell phone, subsisting on a variety of biologically-engineered food products, etc.

Comparing evolutionary theory with pre-Enlightenment confusions again insults not just one of the largest scientific collaborations in history, but also all of the astounding achievements of modern science, medicine and technology over the past century, a few of which I just referenced. It’s not even as fair as comparing apples and oranges, this comparing of periods in which blood-letting was considered medicinal to our era in which open-heart surgery and organ transplants are possible. A totally fallacious comparison—rather than supplant or retire evolutionary theory, it’s infinitely more likely that future scientists will wonder how so many people willfully turned a blind eye towards our progress in understanding our physical world only to shelter their emotional investment in fragile bits of dogma that should have been discarded long ago.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by fiddleback on February 21, 2012 at 5:03 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

Fiddleback, proving again what a whiny child he truly is.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by todd1007 on February 22, 2012 at 3:29 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

As usual (except for the response to flags at half-mast) fiddleback is operating under a misconception and jumping to conclusions. I have no religion so I will not go to a priest or any sort of clergy. I have to figure things out on my own. By the way, a theory in scientific terms is something that can be proven like the theory of gravity. A hypothesis is something that is yet to be proven to a scientific certainty. From what I've read, and I do read a lot, evolution is not a theory but a hypthesis. Can animals change over time due to the effects of nature and natural selection, yes. Evolution, as explained by atheists, goes way beyond that. It is the end all, be all of life itself. If apes truly evolved into men then why are there still apes. Now natural selection could explain that apes could develope lighter colored fur, longer arms, and feet more developed for walking but at some point (this is where science fails) the ape must become a man. Where is he? Where is the fossil evidence? Yes, I said fossils just like a good evolutionist. Surprised fiddleback? I assume that most everything surprises you. Well, I have to go now and think some more. You should try it sometime rather than except everything you see on MSNBC.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Calvin on February 22, 2012 at 4:04 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

todd1007, proving again how brilliantly he can dismantle every point of a multi-paragraph argument with his cunning 10-word riposte!

Calvin, who's making assumptions? Back2School suggested you might consult a priest, not me. Even then, it was hypothetical.

Reading comprehension grade: F

Next, evolution is a scientific theory. No scientist would ever refer to it as a law or a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation that encompasses laws, facts, and hypotheses to explain natural phenomena. We know for a fact that evolution happens amongst and between species; there is too much evidence, research, and observation to dispute that. The larger evolutionary theory explains in how it happens, with debate limited to the details of the roles played by natural selection, gene flow, genetic recombination, genetic drift, mutation, and symbiosis. They teach you this stuff in most any middle school science course.

Middle School Life Science grade: F

"If apes truly evolved into men then why are there still apes?"

Amazing how you could somehow dig both holes deeper at once! Trotting out more non-science, even after I addressed such silliness with this link:

http://www.skeptic.com/downloads/top-10-evolution-myths.pdf

“Well, I have to go now and think some more. You should try it sometime rather than except everything you see on MSNBC.”

Don’t hurt yourself. Also, I don’t have a TV or watch that channel. Way to make an assumption.

Hyprocrisy grade: A+

• Upvote 0
• Posted by fiddleback on February 22, 2012 at 11:34 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

Anyone confused by Ben Stein, and co-author Kevin Miller’s propaganda film should look at “Expelled Exposed.” http://www.expelledexposed.com/

@Back2school, you have made a number of illogical, and factually incorrect statements. These make your assertion of the “arrogance” of scientists rather pathetic.

For example, you wrote, “Calvin could say go to your priest, they have studied it as well.”

What Clavin had said in this case was, "For to my mind this is a certain principle, that nothing is here (in Genesis) treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy and the other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere.” And later he stated, “It must be remembered, that Moses does not speak with philosophical acuteness on occult mysteries, but states those things which are everywhere observed, even by the uncultivated, and which are in common use." Calvin, John, Genesis, I, 79 & 84 (1554). He could almost be speaking of you when he wrote, “Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them.” (Vol. 1, part 3).

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Dr_GS_Hurd on February 22, 2012 at 11:56 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning...it reminds me of FIDDLEBACK! (that has always sounded like some sort of crotch parasite).

You never did respond to the "theory/hypothesis" comment which is an important point of declaration.

I NEVER said that YOU made a comment about priests. I was answering someone else. Sheesh, you think the world revolves around you instead of the sun. You did know the earth orbits the sun didn't you?

You want to make some sort of claim about a "belief" system that is 150 years old but then you want to ignore a belief system that goes back about 3,000 years. What's up with that?

Lets do some creative writing and maybe we can find something for you to believe in. 50,000 years ago, as we measure time today, a ship was forced to land on the third planet from the sun. The landing spot was chosen to be on a high mountain top where the local life rarely ventured. This ship contained a science mission and fortunately the planet was conducive to life. With their hyper space messaging system damaged rescue was a long time off. For thousands of years the scientists roamed the planet cataloging the life and establishing other mountain top installations. As with all beings dissent broke out among the science team. They broke up into several groups with different interests. They remained in loose contact and a wager came about. Who could create a better life form. It was decided that the primates had the best chance of success. To this end the science began genetic experiments to create better primates. Success was creeping and unsatisfying. One scientist broke several ethical rules by combining primate DNA with his own DNA. The resulting primate was taller, less hairy, and much smarter. This subject would also share in the long life of the scientist. He could be expected to live 800 to 900 years. A much shorter time than the thousands of years the scientist would live but much longer than the expected 30 to 50 years of the typical primate. The neo primate was self aware but he was happy (as he was a male).
After several years the primate (now called Odam) pined for something else. The scientist took a sample of flesh from Odam and created another identical bearing but in female form. The procreative process could be interesting. The scientist did a rather sloppy job and did not get a perfect match. The new one called Eeve was smaller but in many ways seemed to be smarter and more curious. (more later. I hope Fiddleback finds this interesting like a shiny coin)

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Calvin on February 22, 2012 at 1:15 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

@Back2school

You wrote, “Remember when scientists believed the world was flat? Remember when leeches were scientific medicine? Or that the Earth was thought to be the center of the universe? All of these were considered rational thought at the time.”

While I am considerably older than you are, I am not old enough to personally recall a time when biblical cosmology was considered the standard. Although, there are fundamentalists who seem willing to bring it back. The Greek mathematician Eratosthenes of Cyrene (276-194 BC) while Second Librarian of Alexandria, calculated the diameter of the Earth and distance between the Earth and Sun. This knowledge was in conflict with biblical cosmology and suppressed. Perhaps you might have read of the persecution of those scientists who over turned the Western religious orthodoxy on these issues. Galileo in his defense wrote, "The Book of Nature is written in (clearly-understood) mathematics." He cited Cardinal Baronius (1598) for the statement, "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." It did him little good.

Regarding leeches, blood letting was rejected in the late 1700s by none other than Erasmus Darwin, Charles R.’s Grandfather. It was also rejected by the scientist and surgeon John Hunter (died 1793). But, as the saying goes, “They’re Back.” You should read, “Hirudo medicinalis-leech applications in plastic and reconstructive microsurgery--a literature review” (2007), or “Leech Therapy in Reconstructive Maxillofacial Surgery” (2012).

Interestingly, Hunter’s last written scientific paper in 1793 was denied publication because it concluded that the Earth’s fossils were the result of processes that took “many thousands of centuries,” and could not have been produced by Noah’s Flood.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Dr_GS_Hurd on February 22, 2012 at 1:16 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

“You never did respond to the "theory/hypothesis" comment which is an important point of declaration.”

Calvin, are you really serious? What’s this below then? And what learning disability(ies) do you truthfully have?

“Next, evolution is a scientific theory. No scientist would ever refer to it as a law or a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation that encompasses laws, facts, and hypotheses to explain natural phenomena. We know for a fact that evolution happens amongst and between species; there is too much evidence, research, and observation to dispute that. The larger evolutionary theory explains in how it happens, with debate limited to the details of the roles played by natural selection, gene flow, genetic recombination, genetic drift, mutation, and symbiosis. They teach you this stuff in most any middle school science course.”

It must be serious torture for your professors to grade your essay responses—when you even address the prompt, how much partial credit can they ever award your scattered and off-topic ramblings?

No time for your science fiction, I’m afraid. Maybe you should buy a shovel and go digging on mountaintops for that spaceship....

• Upvote 0
• Posted by fiddleback on February 22, 2012 at 1:33 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

A final note to Back2school regarding David Berlinski, and whale evolution. First, anyone impressed by that pompous ass prefers their presuppositions confirmed over any reasoned position. Second, the fossils and the molecular data fall exactly in place together; see the data available to the public from Professor J.G.M. Thewissen. http://www.neomed.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/

Prof. Thewissen emphasized the biomechanical/skeletal evolution of whales. For a quick introduction to the genetic basis for whale evolution see the literature cited in my, “Baleen whale evolution and creationists” http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2011/08/baleen-whale-evolution-and-creationists.html

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Dr_GS_Hurd on February 22, 2012 at 1:36 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

@fiddleback,

Let me offer some better websites to use;

The Index of Creationist Claims http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

Quote Mine Project Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

"What is a Species, and What is Not?" by the late Ernst Mayr is a must read! http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/perspectives/Mayr_1996_june.shtml

Re: human evolution;

The Smithsonian Institution's "Human Origins" http://humanorigins.si.edu/

The Institute of Human Origins, and Arizona State University, "Becoming Human" http://www.becominghuman.org/

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Dr_GS_Hurd on February 22, 2012 at 2:15 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

Calvin wrote, “By the way, a theory in scientific terms is something that can be proven like the theory of gravity. A hypothesis is something that is yet to be proven to a scientific certainty. From what I've read, and I do read a lot, evolution is not a theory but a hypthesis.”

And, “…the ape must become a man. Where is he? Where is the fossil evidence?”

If you are the “Calvin” referred to earlier by Back2school, I have even less respect for him than I had.

@Calvin, If I wanted an example of someone who knew next to nothing about the philosophy of science, and babbled on about it, I would use you. If I wanted a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, I could use you. A ‘theory’ in the sciences is the general statement of “a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

Philosophers of science, such as Karl Popper, or Carl Hemple, are even more rigorous making ‘theory’ the constructed generalization of successfully demonstrated hypotheses, which must also generate new hypotheses. A Hypothesis is a predictive statement derived from either a data generalization, or theory. A proper hypothesis challenges the truth of a theory by predicting a future observation that depends on the truth of the theory. The most trivial real hypothesis is replication. For example, if I chose to test the hypothesis that hydrogen and oxygen combine as either H2O, or H2O2, I could correctly say that this is a hypothesis testing the validity of the Atomic Theory. Any chemist would say that I was stupidly wasting lab space, and time. Many of my professional colleagues would also say I am wasting time replying to your questions, but here are the answers.

“If apes truly evolved into men then why are there still apes.”

No modern human evolved from any modern apes. We do share a distant common ancestor. There is no particular ‘need’ that evolution produced humans, or apes. While I am glad to be here and admire the view, there is no reason to think that a gibbon might some day have a distant offspring who is even vaguely like me. We modern humans have had at least 6 million years of separation from the nearest living of our ape “cousins.”

As for the rest, I gave "fiddleback" some recommendations earlier regarding easy access information on human evolution. Use those.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Dr_GS_Hurd on February 22, 2012 at 3:01 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

Dr. Hurd, thank you for sharing these. I'm not a scientist by trade, and this is admittedly not an area where I'm used to finding sites that help debunk the many myths and misunderstandings.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by fiddleback on February 22, 2012 at 3:09 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

Wow, and I thought that psuedo-intellectuals could hold an civil, emotionless debate while holding differing viewpoints. It appears this topic cannot be discussed with respect to the opposing side. Too many people have too many emotions involved in their own belief system and cannot stand to try to understand the opposition.

Yes, from my perspective, Evolution is still as unproven as the existance of a Supreme being. I believe I actually stated that neither were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in an earlier post (based on my comment I will not know the answer until I die nor will anyone else). I also stated earlier what I would require to believe it on a level that fiddleback does - absolute confidence. I am old enough to know I do not know everything, and been around enough to know those who claim that they do only show their own ignorance. The supporting evidence may lead to a direction, but it proves nothing until it can be reproduced.

Too many people are trying to win as opposed to trying to express their own opinions and learn from other posters. I am sorry, I thought that was the point of college, to learn from people who are different from you. This discussion has done nothing to raise my intellectual curiosity, it simply reinforced that fact that many people such as Dr_GS_Hurd who have an innate hatred of religion and use evolution as their life's work in attempting to dis-credit it. It also shows they will tolerate no civil discourse they might be incorrect. I have no desire to talk to brick walls, it is not worth the energy.

@ fiddleback - I have always respected your answers, you are articulate and bring very good supporting evidence (even if I disagree with the source of that evidence or hold a differing opinion). I will leave it at that.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Back2School on February 22, 2012 at 3:50 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

Oh man. Debating evolution versus intelligent design is so 1960's.

The only part of the theory of evolution (though maybe its not included) that currently doesn't have a satisfactory explanation is the very beginning: the very first lifeform. It will be hard to find the origins simply because they might not even be a cell; therefore, scientists don't even know what to look for. After you get to the first cell, its pretty much smooth sailing to get all the way to mankind.

Yet all the intelligent design folks seem to go after areas such as the evolution of man that have well documented proof for them. I can't believe Calvin would complain about a lack of fossil evidence when even wikipedia has extensive pages full of it. I think the two most important ones are homo erectus and homo heidelburgensis.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Zero on February 22, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

@fiddleback,

There are hundreds of sites, but those I suggested are particularly helpful for on-line discussions with creationists. For teachers in the US k-12 public schools, I think that “Understanding Evolution” has got to be the best resource available. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Generally trustworthy articles are at TalkOrigins, or major National Laboratories, and Universities.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Dr_GS_Hurd on February 22, 2012 at 4:36 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

Zero, if you look at how many of these posters likely had initial science education in the 60's or 70's, that might be a chunk of your answer as to why there's so much contention. I imagine some of the rest of it is people desperately wanting to believe that humans are a special creation; without that security, perhaps there's also the worry that there might not be a special afterlife for us?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by fiddleback on February 22, 2012 at 4:39 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

@Back2school

Obviously pseudo-intellectuals like you cannot stand to be rebuked in public, and so you whine about how mean scientists are that expose this great ignorance to ridicule.

There is nothing needed to prove evolutionary biology. We have the fossils, we have the gene sequences, we have the biogeography. We know the mechanisms of mutation, and selection. We have observed the direct emergence of new species from old. We can even induce this today. I have compiled a list of dozens of examples- some published over 100 years ago. "Emergence of New Species" http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2009/03/emergence-of-new-species.html

Two easy books that can teach rational, intelligent people about evolution are;

Carroll, Sean B. 2006 “The Making of the Fittest” New York: Norton

Shubin, Neal 2008 “Your Inner Fish” New York: Pantheon Books

You ‘back2school,’ have nothing by whiney objections that nobody created a universe just for you. So what? What makes you that important? What we have done is demonstrate the existence of vacuum photons that persist in macro time. For example;

A. GUERREIRO 2010 “On the quantum space–time structure of light” Journal of Plasma Physics (2010), 76 : pp 833-843 DOI: 10.1017/S0022377810000425

Toru Kawakubo and Katsuji Yamamoto 2011 “Photon creation in a resonant cavity with a nonstationary plasma mirror and its detection with Rydberg atoms” Phys. Rev. A 83, 013819 (2011) [7 pages]

If you understood the significance of that, you would not be spouting nonsense. Since you are spouting nonsense, I know that you are clueless. Two fairly easy to read books can teach most people about cosmology, and why it is not evolutionary biology;

Krauss, Lawrence 2012 “A Universe From Nothing” New York: Free Press

Susskind, Leonard 2005 "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design" New York: Little and Brown Publishers

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Dr_GS_Hurd on February 22, 2012 at 7:03 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

Actually, I will ask you to forgive me. I said I would leave it at that but yet I cannot. It’s a failing of mine and one I work at everyday but sometimes I simply cannot let rude behavior go. To respond to your last comment, I am fine if there is no special afterlife for me. My faith has encouraged me to live a life of honor and respect. I have been a good example to my children and have earned the respect of most I come across and all this is due to my faith. If there is no “special afterlife” for me I am fine with that, I have had my reward here on Earth because of the actions my faith directs me to follow.

@fiddleback – I pity you. Not for your beliefs, but simply in your own insecurities. You were doing a fine job of articulating your message on your own (though you still project your own illusions onto other people of what you think they are saying and get a little too emotional in the heat of the moment). You articulated your point extremely well, yet, you felt you were losing, and brought in a very well educated specialist in Biology to come argue for you. I appeared very much like I can’t beat you up but I’ll go get my big brother. You were not “losing”. I honestly expected more from you; you should have more faith in yourself than that.

With debates like this, the best you can hope for is more understanding for your viewpoint– there will never be a moment of complete surrender. There is no “winning”; simply a chance to promote greater understanding of your viewpoint. On that note you failed completely. Your “friend” who argued the point for you most likely did not convert ME to the cause, it simply drove ME away. Bringing a specialist in a field to argue with (and insult) other undergrads, isn’t “winning”. You may take silence as a “win” but simply it means I do not care to argue the point any longer nor will I go get my own “expert” to argue with your “expert”. In one aspect you actually lost as your “discussion” will most likely prompt me to vote for anything religious based on the ballots in the future – simply to defend myself from closed minded bigots who hate those of us that have faith.

And why did I write this long note? I hold out hope that somewhere within you is a person of honor who can grow from this lesson. If you are half as smart as you appear to be you will take the lesson about humility and become a better human being and learn to respect others, even those who do not share your viewpoint. Or you can simply continue on and continue to smugly belittle others as ignorant because of their beliefs.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Back2School on February 22, 2012 at 7:30 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

@ DR_GS_Hurd, If you are the Dr. who wrote the papers he claimed to, I pity you as well. If I were ever to get to that level of education, I would hopefully have better things to do with my time than come to a college message board in order to call out how ignorant the undergrads are- simply because I do not like their viewpoint. I would compare that to me going to bully some middle school kids and ridicule their lack of education so I can feel superior to make up for my own issues. In my day, if you knew more than someone else, you tried to teach them so you both can grow from the experience; people who you belittle most likely will not accept your “teachings”. As a liberal (who happens to be a person of faith), I expect other liberals to take the higher ground, and it seems I was wrong in this case.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Back2School on February 22, 2012 at 7:31 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

Back2school, wow.

1. If you think I can convince some PhD to come raise hell in this obscure little gutter, you've got a pretty wild imagination. I swear on my life I've never met him or know who he is. I'm a solo scrapper and never had an older sibling as backup. For you to write this epic post assuming as much is frankly just sad.
   

2. A bit of vitriol in my words doesn't mean I'm getting emotional. It means I know I'm in a gutter; civility left town years back when certain characters started skulking around.

3. You don't shoot for converting people in a gutter, nor even try to "win," as who around here would ever admit defeat? This is a billiard game in the basement---a way to kill a bit of time, get in some good shots, and laugh at that bragging guy who constantly scratches.

Sorry if you had more earnest intentions of give-and-take, but on a subject with which there are such disparate depths of education and spiritual systems at stake, that was hardly in the cards. On to greener pastures...

• Upvote 0
• Posted by fiddleback on February 22, 2012 at 9:22 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

@40+_yearold-lil'boy,

Yeah, you.

You have adopted a argumentative stance that unless your absurd, and impossible requirements are satisfied, your personal anti-science opinion will be unswayed. Under that requirement, I abandon any effort to provide rational material to you. I abandon teaching you. Instead, my goal is to use your ignorance as a bad example. This turns the willful ignorance of one person into the opportunity to teach others. You are just not that important.

I don't abuse you because we have different "viewpoints." It is easy to abuse you because you are publicly making false statements, and disparaging the work of serious people who have actually improved the state of humanity- intellectually and materially. If you want to adopt a particular profession of faith, I'll bet is will be biblical. If so, there are some books you ought to read;

If you want to go Catholic;

Ayala, Francisco 2007 Darwin’s Gift: To Science and Religion (Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press- National Academies Press) (Ayala is a former Catholic priest, and an eminent biologist).

Haught, John F. 2001 “Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution” New York: Paulist Press (Haught is a Catholic theologian who testified as a plaintiff expert in the Dover, Pa “Intelligent Design” trial).

Protestants; Frye, Roland Mushat (editor) 1983 "Is God a Creationist?: The Religious Case Against Creation-Science" New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, Inc.

Hyers, Conrad 1984 “The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science” Atlanta: John Knox Press (Conrad Hyers has served as Professor of the History of Religion and Chair of the Department of Religion at both Beloit College and at Gustavus Adolphus College. He is also an ordained Presbyterian minister)

Miller, Keith B. (editor) 2003 “Perspectives on an Evolving Creation” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing

And I found that the perspective of an Orthodox Rabbi was particularly interesting Rabbi Natan Slifkin, 2006 “The Challenge of Creation: Judaism’s Encounter with Science, Cosmology and Evolution” New York: Zoo Torah and Yashar Books

I found it actually irritating for a moment that an ignorant putz would false say I have, "an innate hatred of religion and use evolution as their life's work in attempting to dis-credit it."

But, it is like to a 5 year old denied a sweet who shouts, "I hate you. You are mean. WAHHAHHAHHAAAAAAAAA"

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Dr_GS_Hurd on February 22, 2012 at 9:46 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

I need to make an apology to 'back2school" He did not post the YouTube crap by David Berlinski. That was a different twit named 'Savage.'

Seriously, why do you people take up space at a university?

My maternal grandfather was a general contractor, his wife, my grandmother could have been. I have most of their tools, and can use them. A plumber makes as much per year as most professors. You could do better out of academics. General labor is good work- it is how I paid for school.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Dr_GS_Hurd on February 22, 2012 at 10:30 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

I am about to sign-off, but a comment by "Back2school" just struck me as particularly stupid. He wrote, "I also stated earlier what I would require to believe it on a level that fiddleback does - absolute confidence. I am old enough to know I do not know everything, and been around enough to know those who claim that they do only show their own ignorance."

His requirement was the creation of the universe, the solar system, the Earth, and then Life resulting in humans today, all directly evidenced in his personal view. This is more than merely stupid. That is extremely stupid. What I just found interesting was that B2S boasts that they are old, and more ignorant. Personally, I am older and less ignorant. "Back2school" impressed me as someone very proud that they could remain ignorant.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Dr_GS_Hurd on February 22, 2012 at 11:46 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

Dr. Hurd can I use you as a witness for a tuition refund? The definition of hypothesis and theory came from a biology text and supported by a biology instructor. So I should get my money back right?

Before you embrace fiddleback Dr. Hurd you should read some of his other posts.

You know I heard the earth was flat thing the other day in class. Some Marxist was attacking something and he said EVERYONE believed the earth was flat a thousand years ago. I mentioned a couple of Greek mathematicians and a couple of astronomers who though otherwise. In fact a number of people knew the earth was round. They didn't know how large and the church had a problem with the idea of the earth orbiting the sun.

You know fiddleback, I do pretty good with my papers. I do a lot research, think about it, and write them very fast. I think my worst grade was a B. Can you do that and match the result? You know, write fast with more knowledge than necessary?

I can't really believe that this thread has gone so far. I thought this was Kansas. Flat, dry, and very bible belt. I guess those urban myths are also wrong.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Calvin on February 23, 2012 at 3:15 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

@DR_GS_Hurd It seems like most in academia while an expert in your own field, you are completely ignorant in others. While you feel my comment was particularly stupid since I rely on my own experience and know my own limits, I suggest you argue with the following great thinkers as they seem to agree with me: “True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing. “- Socrates “To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge.” - Copernicus “Knowing others is wisdom, knowing yourself is enlightenment.” - Lao Tzu “Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.” - Confucius quotes “The only source of knowledge is experience” - Albert Einstein

Additionally, I will assume you know the difference between ignorance and stupidity, and go on to say that you are incredibly stupid when it comes to social skills and/or basic human interactions. If you have ever been a teacher in your lifetime, I feel for your students. I will teach you a very basic social skill, if you are not too arrogant to learn. In order to communicate with other humans, delivery is as important as content. No one listens to a pompous fool even if they are correct. You have shown your ignorance time and time again by insulting me and others on this board then post information as to why you are correct and you have absolutely no clue that no one would read the posts following your emotional outbursts. You have wasted your time, not because we are stupid, simply because you lack the necessary skills required to have a civilized discussion.

I am glad you know how to use a tool, so did my 2 year old daughter when she played with her brother’s workbench. Bravo. I as well have been a contractor and worked double shifts in a factory for many years. I now enjoy the benefits of being a Program Manager for a $500 Million a year segment of a Fortune 50 company. My education at this point in my life is a reward for my own success. I daresay if you are in academia, you make less than I do and I, in your own words are an ignorant uneducated fool, while you are a brilliant Dr with a fine California education, well beyond my own education simply yet you cannot match my success. You seem to be an under-achiever.

I come to this site as a student with the following quote in mind “Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.” - Robert Quillen I rather enjoy the discussion of fellow Jayhawkers since we all share in the greatness that is KU. Even If I disagree with them, they are still my brothers and sisters and deserve to be treated with respect, something you obviously know nothing about.

One last quote from Einstein that absolutely proves how stupid he would believe you are: “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Back2School on February 23, 2012 at 8:05 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

Calvin, I somehow doubt the biology text or your instructor would corroborate your paraphrased definition. Good luck with the refund.

“You know fiddleback, I do pretty good with my papers. I do a lot research, think about it, and write them very fast.”

You mean that you do well? I’m glad to hear your papers make more sense. Yes, research often involves learning more than you will include. Maybe you could slow down your reading and writing around here and something cogent would emerge…

“I guess those urban myths are also wrong.” Stereotypes, myths, whatever. It is indeed proudly trafficking in those superficial bits of information that helps establish one as an example the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

And Back2School, insulting a lower salary doesn’t really leave you any moral high ground---that’s more the kind of stuff that makes this a gutter.

Your requirement of complete demonstration in order to accept the scientific consensus on this theory is a bit odd given the number of things we accept as scientifically true without basic visual demonstration: atoms, electrons, the earth’s core being iron instead of cheese, just to name a few. One can’t help but conclude that the only reason that you don’t accept this particular consensus is that it conflicts with certain varieties of biblical literalism including you own?

You can try to couch it in a sort of working class humility and sticking to your own life experiences, but it sounds more like a Missouri’s “show-me” attitude: a stubborn distrust that borders on paranoia or deliberate obtuseness. And sorry, but if, even after being shown digestible explanations, resources, and links aplenty, you would still use the topic's complexity to a layman as an excuse to reject such a cornerstone of modern science, that doesn’t sound not so much like a simple man sticking to time-tested truths, but more like a child hiding when it’s time to eat his least favorite vegetable.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by fiddleback on February 23, 2012 at 10:12 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

I meant to say I do pretty damn well with my papers.

For the doctor, I am a licensed electrician and learned my trade in the US Navy. I have also done plumbing work, carpentry, and metal work. So, does that make me a better scholar? I suppose if I hadn't spent most of my adult life defending this country I too would have a Phd behind my name or a Dr. in front but I won't trade it. Someday I will have a Dr. in front of my name and I will have served my country.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Calvin on February 24, 2012 at 1:10 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

@ fiddleback, one of the funny things I find about this discussion is that everyone assumes people’s views are extremes to either end. I myself am about 60% Creationism, 40% Evolution. I was not raised in a church environment, and until finding my faith a few years ago never truly considered that a possibility. Since then, I have witnesses several items in my own life that lead me to lean towards the Creationism side of things. I will also repeat again what I said before “I will not know the definitive answer to this question until I leave this life”. I mean that-for me to fully 100% embrace either side, I need full empirical proof, not something close enough. I fully take into account that evolution may be true, but I also believe that Creationism may be as well. If my being open to the possibility of either being right offends extremist on either side, so be it. I will not draw my conclusion before proving my hypothesis.

You are correct, my comment towards the Gary (I refuse to call a classless person like him a Dr.) was not “nice”, but in my opinion he deserves less than what he received. Most people learn to play nice and be respectful of others in kindergarten; Gary apparently hasn’t made it that far yet. His personal attacks towards me and others here were rude, condescending, and he deserves to be treated like the spoiled child he is. I have never spoken to you in the manner I responded to Gary in – you are passionate but have never been belligerent towards me. He also is not a student – though this site is not reserved to students, who outside of a student would care to spend any time here? Gary also appears to spend most of his time dropping in on other websites to fight this very message – using the exact same screen name. If Gary wishes to continue to be an obnoxious troll, insulting people who disagree with him, he really should protect his identity better; to do otherwise is extremely ignorant.

You speak of this as a “gutter”. Do you realize this is a KU site? This is a part of our great institution and it simply is what we make of it. A place for the students, helped to be built by the students. I had viewed this site (apparently to my error) as the mouthpiece for KU, a place where journalists learn their trade, and they pose editorials designed to make the students think and open a civilized discussion between peoples of opposing viewpoints; a literal classroom where people could civilly be open and honest with their beliefs in an air of camaraderie amongst fellow students. I thought that was a main part of the college experience. Maybe I am naïve or romantic, but these are things I have heard every grad fondly recall about their days in school. If we allow OUR newspaper to become nothing more than a simple comment board, we dishonor our beloved school. In my opinion, leave the trolling and stupid attacks (between students) for message boards that do not bear the name of this flagship university.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Back2School on February 24, 2012 at 8:36 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

It occurs to me that given the recent actions of our troll fiddleback that "Dr. Hurd" is likely another fiddleback identity. This would not be the first time for that. A quick search only shows that the "Dr." showed up for this topic only. The "Dr." also seems to be quite taken with fiddleback. The height of narcissim or has the good "Dr." got up off the ground with fleas. Always know who you are embracing.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Calvin on February 24, 2012 at 10:32 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

@ Calvin, while you may be correct, do a simple Google search on DR_GS_Hurd. That screen name shows up on many, many other sites, includes pictures, links to his education, his current job as Curator at a museum in Orange County CA and every time he shows up it is to argue creationism. He also usually seems to be bashing the gentleman Savage posted the link to and specifically attacking the whale evolution theory. The only oddity in this posting vs. others is he usually is not as demeaning as he is in this one, but again most of those posts are people fawning over his brilliance, not dis-agreeing with him.

The sad part is the ignorance of using your name as your screen name is beyond belief. What I found in a 5 minute Google search is nothing compared to what I could accomplish with a few more minutes if I truly cared - and I am by no means close to the skill level of an ethical hacker (of who I know many). Phone numbers, addresses, etc. Its a shame some people still live in the 20th century and have no clue the dangers of the 21st.

Watch the link Savage posted then view some of the associated videos. Apparently many biologists have come to the conclusion that when you get to a deep enough level, the elegance in the overall design led them to believe this could not happen by chance. If even some biologists stand for Intelligent Design, it surprises me other Biologists expect me to completely discount their findings while embracing their own with 100% faith. It seems to be a similiar form of censorship Gary is so frustrated the early church took. If prominent biologists disagree, I feel holding both as plausable is not ignorant by any stretch.

I just wonder why Gary wouldn't take the other biologist on head to head? Instead he seems to prefer to bash undergrads at little read websites. Could it be that for all his knowledge, it simply doesn't stand up against others who have the same knowledge and experience yet come to a differing conclusion than himself?

Ok, this time I am really out. It has been a good discussion with good points on all sides but it is time for this thread to die – it has gone way off track.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Back2School on February 24, 2012 at 11:27 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

It’s hilarious how much you stink at using the internet, Calv. Google the name—he’s at Texas Tech.

B2S,

I never assumed that you were “100%” creationist—those people posted first and didn’t stick around to have their theology threatened. And I’m not surprised by your 60/40 self-estimate. I would imagine much of Hurd’s dismissiveness stems from your obvious capacity and hint of willingness to learn more on the subject, but the “show me the proof” stance sounds like a defensive excuse, like you’ve set the bar so high that there’s no point in reading any of the half dozen books or dozen web links he provided. He provided those because he knows people with basic capacity and openness to knowledge could easily flip a 60/40 ratio of disbelief just by exposing themselves to more detailed explanations.

And if you’re now unwilling to expose yourself out of spite due to his disrespect, it sounds like just another excuse, as if you were never that open to or interested in the topic in the first place.

“I will not know the definitive answer to this question until I leave this life” – Or, you may not know anything when you leave this life, as there may not be a conscious, let alone omniscient, afterlife for any creature including humans. And I can’t be accused of atheism just for saying that; belief in a creator and belief in an afterlife are separate leaps. You might enjoy Terrence Malick’s new film Tree of Life; which has sequences marrying the scientific and the spiritual – there’s imagery of the formation of the universe, Earth, and evolving life. For those of the theist/afterlife persuasion, there is also a heavenly reunion scene at the end.

I call this a gutter because even if a couple new people like yourself wander in with earnest intentions, they tend to leave after realizing that this place is dominated by a few reactionaries who lazily scoff at the liberal greenhorn writers and anyone who differs with them. It’s one thing to make an intelligent conservative critique, but these posters are hardly budding George Will’s or Bill Buckley’s.

The rest of your third paragraph about ideal civil discussion is nice to imagine, but that’s generally only possible when positions are tempered by face-to-face dialogue. This is an anonymous internet forum, and calling it a gutter isn’t even meant to call it much worse than average; there are countless sewers and cesspools much cruder than this. Ask Calvin; he claims to haunt some of those as well.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by fiddleback on February 24, 2012 at 3:23 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

I hardly think that is proof fiddle, that someone exists is not proof that he is posting here. You should be very aware of that phoney.

For you late comers, fiddleback is the only one I know who has attempted to out people on this site and has conjured up alternate identities to push his views. Why he has even tried to move in on someone else's name and post fake letters in their name. Beware the fiddle.

It is amazing in some ways that people who subscribe to evolution also subscribe to Global Warming or AGW. In the case of AGW the evidence does not support the hypothesis but they persist like religious fanatics. I will say it plainly, there is insufficient evidence to support evolution to any mathematically certainty. If you have any proof otherwise... (sigh) I suppose I have to repeat to the dense that I turned my back on religion longer ago than fiddle has been alive. So lets not make the stupid charge again.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Calvin on February 24, 2012 at 4:10 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

I don’t think there are any latecomers, but funny that you imagine an audience. I actually rather enjoy your paranoia, Calv. I did one little brief play on your name with “Clavin” as a username (no rule-breaking intended) and I’ve become the boogie man mastermind…just keep that gun under your pillow loaded.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by fiddleback on February 24, 2012 at 4:49 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

This has been more amusing since I stopped commenting. I'll continue that practice.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Dr_GS_Hurd on February 24, 2012 at 11:23 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

Oh,

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Dr_GS_Hurd on February 24, 2012 at 11:28 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

Now you know that is an utter lie.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Calvin on February 25, 2012 at 1:03 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

@ fiddleback The main reason I discount Gary’s information is his delivery – as I am sure you would discount any religious figure screaming that you are stupid and that you are going to burn in Hell then directing you to read the Bible – would you claim that is an excuse as well? It’s not a defense as I am open to both possibilities, nor is it out of spite (a malicious, usually petty, desire to harm, annoy, frustrate, or humiliate another person; bitter ill will; malice); that would be Gary’s actions towards Savage, Calvin and myself. I simply refuse to follow the directions of a petty, abusive person; there are no positives for doing so, and it would only be weakness to allow a bully to direct your actions. Not following Gary’s “orders” in no way shape or form could match the description of spite.

Gary’s comment about who should be allowed in college smacks of those Republicans who push for private schools, at the expense of Public Education. I bet he is an elitist who believes only the wealthy are entitled to an education, and the poor should only be servants for the wealthy – hence his direction to all of us to become plumbers and not assistance in helping us expand our minds (in a positive fashion).

You also missed the point where I set the bar just as high to prove the existence of a Supreme Being - yet you do not accuse me of making excuses to disbelieve that. I will believe that with 100% confidence when and if I meet Him. Sound familiar? I have direct experiences that cause me to lean in that direction. I am a person of faith– but I do not claim absolute confidence. I will be a centrist until either side can provide prove beyond a shadow of a doubt their viewpoint is correct and the opposition is false.

So as to why I take the stance I do, it all boils down to this simple question. If I am ok with living my life as it is, dying and being wrong about leaning towards the belief there is a Supreme Being (with no great hardship for following my faith) why the drastic need to prove or disprove evolution when there is not what I consider 100% proof either way? I will find this answer out definitively soon enough when I leave this world- I will either meet my Creator, or I will simply stop existing. Either way I will have lived a life of respect and honor, treating others in a manner all human life is deserving of. I may or may not be rewarded after death and I have missed nothing I deem important during my life.

The only ones with a burning desire for everyone to have absolute acceptance of incomplete theories are those who need to justify their own lifestyles (or are making a profit) – and that goes on both sides of the fence.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Back2School on February 25, 2012 at 9:45 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

B2S,

You're right that Gary Hurd is in CA; for some reason "GS Hurd" brings up a Lubbock paper and a Texas Tech site, presumably where he also registered to make his case. He has invited you to hate the messenger and be complacent with your views, but he is not threatening you with damnation. I've grown up around such types, and I'm always curious to know what passages they're invoking. But I also bear in mind that most of the Bible is cobbled together often from dozens of different versions and perspectives, some more socially or politically manipulative than others; to me it's a very clear case of "too many cooks in the kitchen" that survives on its eloquence.

By comparison, the concepts of scientific method, reproducibility, and peer review form the pinnacle of humans putting aside subjectivity and using pure distilled reason to answer hypotheses. Thus the mountain of agreement necessary to create any scientific theory is a marvel of human collaboration. Scientists arguing for ID are a relatively tiny but vocal minority, and they have a distinctly theist agenda just as Hurd and the vast majority of scientists are resolutely non-supernatural in their search for explanations. The latter are being true to their professions; you stop being scientific when you study something as complex as the human eye, but then throw up your hands and say, "it must be the divine..."

I don't expect you to be 100% either way, but I am saying that regardless of Hurd's delivery, exposure to more detailed explanations could flip your 60/40 in the other direction, and if you have any sincere interest, you owe it to your mind to explore it. This theory is incomplete only in certain details but not in its overall concepts; just as a nearly complete painting's elements and can be clearly seen with only a few spots needing further definition. Rather than look at this image through old lenses, I'm challenging you to ensure that you eradicate any myopia and look at it with 20/20 vision. This not an agenda or attempt at self-justification; only when we all have a similar amount of clarity and literacy on any topic can we have a worthwhile debate of its merits.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by fiddleback on February 26, 2012 at 4:19 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

I still have not had anyone explain how organisms evolved from asexual to sexual reproduction -- how they went from simple cell division, to one organism injecting a substance containing half of its DNA into another organism, to create a third organism.

I have had people tell me there are many advantages to sexual reproduction. I agree, but that doesn't explain how the transition occurred.

I have been insulted and called unintelligent, uneducated and even stupid for getting "hung-up on such a small issue." To which I would reply that those who can argue using facts and logic, do so. Those who cannot argue using facts and logic, insult their opponents. As far as I am concerned, when a person resorts to such insults, he or she is tacitly admitting that he or she has no answer, but refuses to admit it.

The "Scopes Monkey Trial" was about whether the state could force the teaching of creationism and forbid the teaching of evolution. Those who push evolution, now wish to forbid the teaching of intelligent design, while forcing the teaching of evolution exclusively.

I would not deny the teaching of evolution as a nonexclusive theory in the public schools. However, until and unless evolutionary theory develops to the point that it can fully explain our existence, I will also oppose the exclusion of intelligent design from the public schools.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by jbarrett on March 2, 2012 at 12:15 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

"I still have not had anyone explain how organisms evolved from asexual to sexual reproduction -- how they went from simple cell division, to one organism injecting a substance containing half of its DNA into another organism, to create a third organism."

You write as though that information were not at your fingertips more so than at any time in human history. You and those before you write as though there was no Google, as if we had not outlived the era in which such knowledge required physical journey to contact the right human or brick-and-mortar repositories. I won't insult your internet proficiency by posting links from a basic search.

"I would not deny the teaching of evolution as a nonexclusive theory in the public schools. However, until and unless evolutionary theory develops to the point that it can fully explain our existence, I will also oppose the exclusion of intelligent design from the public schools."

At least in the science classroom, evolution deserves to be taught exclusively as it is the only scientific theory for the development of life on this planet. Intelligent design simply is not a scientific theory. It can be broached in a philosophy or political science classroom, but not only does it offer no insight within a science curriculum, but for a teacher to posit a supernatural origin is about the most anti-science thing he/she could do. Intuition of a creator can of course be felt personally, but it does absolutely nothing to further our understanding of biology. Any disciplined science teacher knows this.

Given the volume of information at the doubter's disposal, this is not simply a case of leading a horse to water and it won't drink. This is like the horse carrying on about dying of thirst but then refusing to even look at the water, or spitting it out when a bucket is raised to its lips. Something tells us the horse isn't actually that thirsty.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by fiddleback on March 2, 2012 at 8:28 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

You almost have to admire the doublespeak. First, state that this much to be found on the Internet and then refuse to, convenviently, point to any one thing. If there was something that would clence the argument then why not point it out fiddler. All bluff I see.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Calvin on March 3, 2012 at 7:46 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

HA! Like I said, we're standing on the banks of a giant river, the man says drink, and the horse blinks as if to say, "what water?" It's clear from the discussion above, even after several links were offered, that no doubters are actually interested in researching their questions; only hiding behind them. But fine, as if you had any actual curiosity, why don't you start with digestible stuff like wiki entries and go from there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutio... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicel...

• Upvote 0
• Posted by fiddleback on March 3, 2012 at 8:19 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus

That's it? Wikipedia? I expected so much more.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Calvin on March 4, 2012 at 10:28 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal