<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fundamental mistakes about evolution</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/</link>
	<description>I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:23:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-2/#comment-263156</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 16:42:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-263156</guid>
		<description>I note the singular absence of scientific facts and discussion here; merely statements of religious bigotry and ridicule.  May I point out that personal attacks upon religious belief DO NOT equate to rigorous scientific effort and evaluation.  Neither do flimsy philosophical fantasies regarding the origin of the species equate to truth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I note the singular absence of scientific facts and discussion here; merely statements of religious bigotry and ridicule.  May I point out that personal attacks upon religious belief DO NOT equate to rigorous scientific effort and evaluation.  Neither do flimsy philosophical fantasies regarding the origin of the species equate to truth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Davidlpf</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-2/#comment-118327</link>
		<dc:creator>Davidlpf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:02:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-118327</guid>
		<description>@SkepTTic, no there are creationists in all over place they just do not have numbers as they enjoy in the states. Also find a bit ironic that a nation in its consitution has clause against church and state that the issue of teaching a religious theory in school is still considered logical to some.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@SkepTTic, no there are creationists in all over place they just do not have numbers as they enjoy in the states. Also find a bit ironic that a nation in its consitution has clause against church and state that the issue of teaching a religious theory in school is still considered logical to some.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: abb3w</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-2/#comment-118325</link>
		<dc:creator>abb3w</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:39:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-118325</guid>
		<description>Actually, there is some Faith involved in Science. Specifically, that formal Logic is a valid basis for inference between propositions, that ZF-based Arithmetic is self-consistent, and that Evidence is connected to Reality. These are not particularly interesting propositions of Faith, nor are they particularly controversial in a philosophical sense; the leaps involved are smaller than from a 1s to 2s hydrogen orbital. They are, however, necessary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, there is some Faith involved in Science. Specifically, that formal Logic is a valid basis for inference between propositions, that ZF-based Arithmetic is self-consistent, and that Evidence is connected to Reality. These are not particularly interesting propositions of Faith, nor are they particularly controversial in a philosophical sense; the leaps involved are smaller than from a 1s to 2s hydrogen orbital. They are, however, necessary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SkepTTic</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-2/#comment-118324</link>
		<dc:creator>SkepTTic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:36:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-118324</guid>
		<description>Is Creationism mainly an  American thing? I can&#039;t recall seeing any sort of similar battle going on in Europe or the rest of the developed world?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is Creationism mainly an  American thing? I can&#8217;t recall seeing any sort of similar battle going on in Europe or the rest of the developed world?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SkepTTic</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-2/#comment-118253</link>
		<dc:creator>SkepTTic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:13:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-118253</guid>
		<description>That Creationism As A Thinking Disorder is fantastic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That Creationism As A Thinking Disorder is fantastic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lousy Canuck &#187; Critical thinking, evolution, and how to not be dismissed as a total idiot</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-2/#comment-118070</link>
		<dc:creator>Lousy Canuck &#187; Critical thinking, evolution, and how to not be dismissed as a total idiot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:35:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-118070</guid>
		<description>[...] in science, who believe in evolution only until science proves otherwise, as science itself is not &quot;faith-based&quot; outside of trusting that other scientists are being honest about their work.  (This is necessary [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] in science, who believe in evolution only until science proves otherwise, as science itself is not &#8220;faith-based&#8221; outside of trusting that other scientists are being honest about their work.  (This is necessary [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: edc</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-2/#comment-118048</link>
		<dc:creator>edc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:02:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-118048</guid>
		<description>so, you&#039;d be against teaching pantheism?
I was a long time atheist, then I got smarter.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>so, you&#8217;d be against teaching pantheism?<br />
I was a long time atheist, then I got smarter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Willo the Wisp</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-2/#comment-118012</link>
		<dc:creator>Willo the Wisp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:22:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-118012</guid>
		<description>While it&#039;s always pleasing to hear a theist informing themselves of the true nature of evolution, it strikes me as odd that one could reach such understanding and still believe that a god is necessary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While it&#8217;s always pleasing to hear a theist informing themselves of the true nature of evolution, it strikes me as odd that one could reach such understanding and still believe that a god is necessary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg in Austin</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-2/#comment-117936</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg in Austin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 22:42:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-117936</guid>
		<description>For me, there is no confusion as to the difference. The ground exists. The air exists. The sun exists. I don&#039;t have to believe it, those things exist regardless. Call it the Truth, or call it a Fact, or call it Reality or whatever. The important thing is there is a major difference between fact/reality/whatever-you-call-it and beliefs/faith/whatever-you-call-it.

The difference is between Knowledge and Beliefs. Perhaps you don&#039;t need to see a difference, and that is fine for you. I do need to know there is a difference. 

Some people believe in fairies, Santa Claus, the Wolf-man, and ET. I am not one of them. I like to read about them and watch them on TV and the big screen.  I enjoy a really good fantasy/sci-fi/myth, and I am well versed in the genre. But those things are not real, which is why they are called &quot;Fantasy.&quot; 

So, I stand by my comment: &quot;The sun will rise tomorrow,&quot; is not equally comparable to, &quot;I believe there is an afterlife.&quot;

If you insist on calling what I &quot;accept&quot; a &quot;belief,&quot; then I would agree only if your statements were less dissimilar. For example, &quot;I believe the sun is, on average, 93million miles from the earth,&quot; because that is what I have been told. I have not measured it, and I have only done rudimentary calculations on the orbit of the earth, days in a year, etc. That statement is based on reality, and can be verified, unlike &quot;the afterlife&quot; or &quot;Wolf-man.&quot;

Does that make sense to anyone outside my head? ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For me, there is no confusion as to the difference. The ground exists. The air exists. The sun exists. I don&#8217;t have to believe it, those things exist regardless. Call it the Truth, or call it a Fact, or call it Reality or whatever. The important thing is there is a major difference between fact/reality/whatever-you-call-it and beliefs/faith/whatever-you-call-it.</p>
<p>The difference is between Knowledge and Beliefs. Perhaps you don&#8217;t need to see a difference, and that is fine for you. I do need to know there is a difference. </p>
<p>Some people believe in fairies, Santa Claus, the Wolf-man, and ET. I am not one of them. I like to read about them and watch them on TV and the big screen.  I enjoy a really good fantasy/sci-fi/myth, and I am well versed in the genre. But those things are not real, which is why they are called &#8220;Fantasy.&#8221; </p>
<p>So, I stand by my comment: &#8220;The sun will rise tomorrow,&#8221; is not equally comparable to, &#8220;I believe there is an afterlife.&#8221;</p>
<p>If you insist on calling what I &#8220;accept&#8221; a &#8220;belief,&#8221; then I would agree only if your statements were less dissimilar. For example, &#8220;I believe the sun is, on average, 93million miles from the earth,&#8221; because that is what I have been told. I have not measured it, and I have only done rudimentary calculations on the orbit of the earth, days in a year, etc. That statement is based on reality, and can be verified, unlike &#8220;the afterlife&#8221; or &#8220;Wolf-man.&#8221;</p>
<p>Does that make sense to anyone outside my head? <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Will. M</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-2/#comment-117822</link>
		<dc:creator>Will. M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:47:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-117822</guid>
		<description>Greg in Austin:

You still believe the data about the sun; you have faith that the data is fact.  You cannot escape the premise that your conclusion about the sun is an either/or choice: what has been presented (to me) as fact IS or ISN&#039;T reality, truth, fact, evidence, etc.  You cannot divorce yourself, your mind,  from the idea that the sun will rise whether or not you approve or disapprove, are concerned or indifferent, deny or accept.  Once the premise that the sun rises is attached to a mental idea, it is either one or the other: the sun will rise because of the data or in spite of the data, both of which premises you have to believe.

Perhaps the language is at fault.  The confusion arises in the faith=belief definitions. Perhaps we need another word -credence?- to describe a belief in what we perceive to be reality, truth, factual, etc., as different from what we hold to be true on faith, without any such corroboration in reality.  At any rate, this is a hair-splitting argument which went on for many comments in the old post on BA&#039;s blog,  and which generally obscured the main idea that science is reality-based and creationism is not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Greg in Austin:</p>
<p>You still believe the data about the sun; you have faith that the data is fact.  You cannot escape the premise that your conclusion about the sun is an either/or choice: what has been presented (to me) as fact IS or ISN&#8217;T reality, truth, fact, evidence, etc.  You cannot divorce yourself, your mind,  from the idea that the sun will rise whether or not you approve or disapprove, are concerned or indifferent, deny or accept.  Once the premise that the sun rises is attached to a mental idea, it is either one or the other: the sun will rise because of the data or in spite of the data, both of which premises you have to believe.</p>
<p>Perhaps the language is at fault.  The confusion arises in the faith=belief definitions. Perhaps we need another word -credence?- to describe a belief in what we perceive to be reality, truth, factual, etc., as different from what we hold to be true on faith, without any such corroboration in reality.  At any rate, this is a hair-splitting argument which went on for many comments in the old post on BA&#8217;s blog,  and which generally obscured the main idea that science is reality-based and creationism is not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chipping the web: September 11th -- Chip&#8217;s Quips</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-2/#comment-117802</link>
		<dc:creator>Chipping the web: September 11th -- Chip&#8217;s Quips</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:00:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-117802</guid>
		<description>[...] Our Matrix: Evolution and IndoctrinationVery well put &#8212; with a LMAO cartoon to boot. (via the Bad Astronomer)Tags: [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Our Matrix: Evolution and IndoctrinationVery well put &#8212; with a LMAO cartoon to boot. (via the Bad Astronomer)Tags: [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darth Robo</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-2/#comment-117779</link>
		<dc:creator>Darth Robo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:50:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-117779</guid>
		<description>&quot;But-but...  they&#039;re still Mosquitoes!&quot;

Sorry!

:)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;But-but&#8230;  they&#8217;re still Mosquitoes!&#8221;</p>
<p>Sorry!</p>
<p> <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hoshisato</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-117765</link>
		<dc:creator>Hoshisato</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:00:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-117765</guid>
		<description>Today&#039;s article in the UK Times newspaper: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4735331.ece tries to argue  &quot;If evolution is presented as theory, not dogma, fewer children might turn away from science&quot;. Enjoy :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today&#8217;s article in the UK Times newspaper: <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4735331.ece" rel="nofollow">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4735331.ece</a> tries to argue  &#8220;If evolution is presented as theory, not dogma, fewer children might turn away from science&#8221;. Enjoy <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: linusrp</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-117763</link>
		<dc:creator>linusrp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:27:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-117763</guid>
		<description>I usually try to use the word think instead of believe (as in I think that evolution is correct, instead of I believe that evolution is correct). To me believe smells too much of uncritical acceptance and not a critical look at the subject. To make matters worse, here in Denmark, it is much more difficult to avoid the word &quot;tror&quot; (danish for believe) since it more or less also means think :( If I want to avoid that word I will have to use the danish word for means (ie. that means so and so...) which, in all honesty, is not as convincing but and more or less make me look like someone who will not accept other explanations (it is often used as a statement of personal belief in a subject) or , depending on how it is said, makes me look like someone who cannot stand up for me own beliefs :s 

Danish language is, sadly,  not always practical in discussions about belief.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I usually try to use the word think instead of believe (as in I think that evolution is correct, instead of I believe that evolution is correct). To me believe smells too much of uncritical acceptance and not a critical look at the subject. To make matters worse, here in Denmark, it is much more difficult to avoid the word &#8220;tror&#8221; (danish for believe) since it more or less also means think <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' />  If I want to avoid that word I will have to use the danish word for means (ie. that means so and so&#8230;) which, in all honesty, is not as convincing but and more or less make me look like someone who will not accept other explanations (it is often used as a statement of personal belief in a subject) or , depending on how it is said, makes me look like someone who cannot stand up for me own beliefs :s </p>
<p>Danish language is, sadly,  not always practical in discussions about belief.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: baryogenesis</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-117745</link>
		<dc:creator>baryogenesis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 06:01:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-117745</guid>
		<description>I saw Alice Cooper  with a whack of friends all on acid in a club in 1969. He&#039;s old. (ref to Phil&#039;s 3rd intro paragraph).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I saw Alice Cooper  with a whack of friends all on acid in a club in 1969. He&#8217;s old. (ref to Phil&#8217;s 3rd intro paragraph).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Hall</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-117735</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Hall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 05:07:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-117735</guid>
		<description>Grinspoon Says:  
What’s the best way to respond to the question,
“tell me one species that has evolved in to another?”

You any kin to the guy that wrote &quot;Lonely Planets?&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Grinspoon Says:<br />
What’s the best way to respond to the question,<br />
“tell me one species that has evolved in to another?”</p>
<p>You any kin to the guy that wrote &#8220;Lonely Planets?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kaleberg</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-117726</link>
		<dc:creator>Kaleberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:14:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-117726</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m with Philip K. Dick: &quot;Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn&#039;t go away.&quot;

On the other hand, I&#039;ve nothing against the colloquial usage of believe as in &quot;I believe in evolution.&quot; There&#039;s no need to be pedantic. Yes, it is incorrect to say that bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance or computers add numbers, but it is perfectly reasonable to do so.

As for the afterlife, I go with William Shakespeare: &quot;the undiscovered country, from whose bourn no traveler returns&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m with Philip K. Dick: &#8220;Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn&#8217;t go away.&#8221;</p>
<p>On the other hand, I&#8217;ve nothing against the colloquial usage of believe as in &#8220;I believe in evolution.&#8221; There&#8217;s no need to be pedantic. Yes, it is incorrect to say that bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance or computers add numbers, but it is perfectly reasonable to do so.</p>
<p>As for the afterlife, I go with William Shakespeare: &#8220;the undiscovered country, from whose bourn no traveler returns&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg in Austin</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-117721</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg in Austin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:03:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-117721</guid>
		<description>@Will. M

You said,

&lt;i&gt;&quot;Belief is acceptance is faith is agreement in every context where an assertion of personal opinion has to made about something - which is damn near all the time. “I know the sun will rise in the east tomorrow” is basically a statement of faith, no matter what you base your statement upon: scientific evidence or just because; it is essentially no different than the statement “I believe in an afterlife.”&quot;&lt;/i&gt;

I wholeheartedly disagree. 

Based on thousands of years of historical fact, based on the knowledge we have learned over centuries of mathematics, astronomy, and physics, and based on millions of hours of observation, the fact is, the earth rotates on its axis every 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 and seconds. Because of this &lt;b&gt;fact&lt;/b&gt;, the sun will appear to rise in the east tomorrow, regardless of our beliefs, and it has absolutely nothing to do with faith.

&quot;I believe that I will be here tomorrow to see the sun rise,&quot; would be a statement of faith. &quot;The sun will appear to rise tomorrow,&quot; is a statement of fact.

There is no historical data showing that there is an afterlife. There are no mathematical proofs, no calculations we can work out, and no way to observe if there is or is not an afterlife. There is no &lt;i&gt;real way&lt;/i&gt; to test for an afterlife, which is why it is solely based on faith.

See the difference?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Will. M</p>
<p>You said,</p>
<p><i>&#8220;Belief is acceptance is faith is agreement in every context where an assertion of personal opinion has to made about something &#8211; which is damn near all the time. “I know the sun will rise in the east tomorrow” is basically a statement of faith, no matter what you base your statement upon: scientific evidence or just because; it is essentially no different than the statement “I believe in an afterlife.”&#8221;</i></p>
<p>I wholeheartedly disagree. </p>
<p>Based on thousands of years of historical fact, based on the knowledge we have learned over centuries of mathematics, astronomy, and physics, and based on millions of hours of observation, the fact is, the earth rotates on its axis every 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 and seconds. Because of this <b>fact</b>, the sun will appear to rise in the east tomorrow, regardless of our beliefs, and it has absolutely nothing to do with faith.</p>
<p>&#8220;I believe that I will be here tomorrow to see the sun rise,&#8221; would be a statement of faith. &#8220;The sun will appear to rise tomorrow,&#8221; is a statement of fact.</p>
<p>There is no historical data showing that there is an afterlife. There are no mathematical proofs, no calculations we can work out, and no way to observe if there is or is not an afterlife. There is no <i>real way</i> to test for an afterlife, which is why it is solely based on faith.</p>
<p>See the difference?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheBlackCat</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-117714</link>
		<dc:creator>TheBlackCat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 03:45:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-117714</guid>
		<description>Here is an article on the London Underground mosquitoes:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_1_110/ai_70770157</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here is an article on the London Underground mosquitoes:</p>
<p><a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_1_110/ai_70770157" rel="nofollow">http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_1_110/ai_70770157</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheBlackCat</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-117713</link>
		<dc:creator>TheBlackCat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 03:38:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-117713</guid>
		<description>“tell me one species that has evolved in to another?”

You can tell them a bunch:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Some examples I recall off the top of my head:
Fruit flies reproductively isolated in the lab and given different selective pressures evolved into two different species.  The same thing happened accidentally in a lab.
Since the building of the London Underground roughly 100 years ago a new species of mosquito has evolved there
Since they were introduced to a small pacific island 200 years ago a population of common house mouse has evolved into a new species</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“tell me one species that has evolved in to another?”</p>
<p>You can tell them a bunch:<br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html</a></p>
<p>Some examples I recall off the top of my head:<br />
Fruit flies reproductively isolated in the lab and given different selective pressures evolved into two different species.  The same thing happened accidentally in a lab.<br />
Since the building of the London Underground roughly 100 years ago a new species of mosquito has evolved there<br />
Since they were introduced to a small pacific island 200 years ago a population of common house mouse has evolved into a new species</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Grinspoon</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-117688</link>
		<dc:creator>Grinspoon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:07:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-117688</guid>
		<description>What&#039;s the best way to respond to the question,

&quot;tell me one species that has evolved in to another?&quot;

Ive gotten this one, and going on about how species don&#039;t give birth to other ones, and how its a very slow process. How do you define species ect? they all branched off a long time again.

You get them asking the same question again. Anyone got a good simple response?


Oh i heard a great one the other day, &quot;they say birds evolved from dinosaurs, but then they tell us the dinosaurs all died out&quot; 
I don&#039;t know if the person was being stupid on purpose or serious..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What&#8217;s the best way to respond to the question,</p>
<p>&#8220;tell me one species that has evolved in to another?&#8221;</p>
<p>Ive gotten this one, and going on about how species don&#8217;t give birth to other ones, and how its a very slow process. How do you define species ect? they all branched off a long time again.</p>
<p>You get them asking the same question again. Anyone got a good simple response?</p>
<p>Oh i heard a great one the other day, &#8220;they say birds evolved from dinosaurs, but then they tell us the dinosaurs all died out&#8221;<br />
I don&#8217;t know if the person was being stupid on purpose or serious..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Todd W.</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-117682</link>
		<dc:creator>Todd W.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:32:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-117682</guid>
		<description>@Gary Ansorge

Technically, if Georgia were granted membership in NATO, and Russia invaded them, according to the terms of the treaty, the U.S. would need to go to Georgia&#039;s aid.  Either that, or break the treaty.

What concerns me more than adhering to the treaty is her stance that we should have &quot;all options available&quot; on the table for pursuing terrorists, including sending troops from Iraq/Afghanistan into Pakistan, even if Pakistan objects to such action.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Gary Ansorge</p>
<p>Technically, if Georgia were granted membership in NATO, and Russia invaded them, according to the terms of the treaty, the U.S. would need to go to Georgia&#8217;s aid.  Either that, or break the treaty.</p>
<p>What concerns me more than adhering to the treaty is her stance that we should have &#8220;all options available&#8221; on the table for pursuing terrorists, including sending troops from Iraq/Afghanistan into Pakistan, even if Pakistan objects to such action.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gary Ansorge</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-117681</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary Ansorge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:57:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-117681</guid>
		<description>AS an aside, Here&#039;s Sarah Palin, in the snooze again:

Palin leaves open option of war with Russia (AP) 

AP - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin left open the option Thursday of waging war with Russia if it were to invade neighboring Georgia and the former Soviet republic were a NATO ally.

I guess someone forgot to mention to her that Russia still has enough nukes to STERILIZE the whole bloody planet.

I&#039;m SO looking forward to this election. If the Repubs win, I&#039;m going to Amsterdam and wait out the Interregnum.

GAry 7</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>AS an aside, Here&#8217;s Sarah Palin, in the snooze again:</p>
<p>Palin leaves open option of war with Russia (AP) </p>
<p>AP &#8211; Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin left open the option Thursday of waging war with Russia if it were to invade neighboring Georgia and the former Soviet republic were a NATO ally.</p>
<p>I guess someone forgot to mention to her that Russia still has enough nukes to STERILIZE the whole bloody planet.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m SO looking forward to this election. If the Repubs win, I&#8217;m going to Amsterdam and wait out the Interregnum.</p>
<p>GAry 7</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SLC</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-117680</link>
		<dc:creator>SLC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:48:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-117680</guid>
		<description>I think that Reverend Bradshaws&#039; take is pretty much on the money.  As evidence, I am posting the following article about Kurt Wise, Un. of Chicago BS in geology, Harvard PhD in paleontology (thesis adviser Stephen J. Gould), young earth creationist, written by Richard Dawkins.   If somebody as intelligent as Dr. Wise can be so brainwashed, what hope is there for the average born again with average or less intelligence.

&lt;em&gt;Sadly, an Honest Creationist
by Richard Dawkins

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 4.

Creation “scientists” have more need than most of us to parade their degrees and qualifications, but it pays to look closely at the institutions that awarded them and the subjects in which they were taken. Those vaunted Ph.D.s tend to be in subjects such as marine engineering or gas kinetics rather than in relevant disciplines like zoology or geology. And often they are earned not at real universities, but at little-known Bible colleges deep in Bush country.

There are, however, a few shining exceptions. Kurt Wise now makes his living at Bryan College (motto “Christ Above All”) located in Dayton, Tennessee, home of the famed Scopes trial. And yet, he originally obtained an authentic degree in geophysics from the University of Chicago, followed by a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard, no less, where he studied under (the name is milked for all it is worth in creationist propaganda) Stephen Jay Gould.

Kurt Wise is a contributor to In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, a compendium edited by John F. Ashton (Ph.D., of course). I recommend this book. It is a revelation. I would not have believed such wishful thinking and self-deception possible. At least some of the authors seem to be sincere, and they don’t water down their beliefs. Much of their fire is aimed at weaker brethren who think God works through evolution, or who clutch at the feeble hope that one “day” in Genesis might mean not twenty-four hours but a hundred million years. These are hard-core “young earth creationists” who believe that the universe and all of life came into existence within one week, less than 10,000 years ago. And Wise—flying valiantly in the face of reason, evidence, and education—is among them. If there were a prize for Virtuoso Believing (it is surely only a matter of time before the Templeton Foundation awards one) Kurt Wise, B.A. (Chicago), Ph.D. (Harvard), would have to be a prime candidate.

Wise stands out among young earth creationists not only for his impeccable education, but because he displays a modicum of scientific honesty and integrity. I have seen a published letter in which he comments on alleged “human bones” in Carboniferous coal deposits. If authenticated as human, these “bones” would blow the theory of evolution out of the water (incidentally giving lie to the canard that evolution is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific: J. B. S. Haldane, asked by an overzealous Popperian what empirical finding might falsify evolution, famously growled, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!”). Most creationists would not go out of their way to debunk a promising story of human remains in the Pennsylvanian Coal Measures. Yet Wise patiently and seriously examined the specimens as a trained paleontologist, and concluded unequivocally that they were “inorganically precipitated iron siderite nodules and not fossil material at all.” Unusually among the motley denizens of the “big tent” of creationism and intelligent design, he seems to accept that God needs no help from false witness.

All the more interesting, then, to read his personal testimony in In Six Days. It is actually quite moving, in a pathetic kind of way. He begins with his childhood ambition. Where other boys wanted to be astronauts or firemen, the young Kurt touchingly dreamed of getting a Ph.D. from Harvard and teaching science at a major university. He achieved the first part of his goal, but became increasingly uneasy as his scientific learning conflicted with his religious faith. When he could bear the strain no longer, he clinched the matter with a Bible and a pair of scissors. He went right through from Genesis 1 to Revelations 22, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific worldview were true. At the end of this exercise, there was so little left of his Bible that

    . . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.

See what I mean about pathetic? Most revealing of all is Wise’s concluding paragraph:

    Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

See what I mean about honest? Understandably enough, creationists who aspire to be taken seriously as scientists don’t go out of their way to admit that Scripture—a local origin myth of a tribe of Middle-Eastern camel-herders—trumps evidence. The great evolutionist John Maynard Smith, who once publicly wiped the floor with Duane P. Gish (up until then a highly regarded creationist debater), did it by going on the offensive right from the outset and challenging him directly: “Do you seriously mean to tell me you believe that all life was created within one week?”

Kurt Wise doesn’t need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have a mind capable of such doublethink. It reminds me of Winston Smith in 1984 struggling to believe that two plus two equals five if Big Brother said so. But that was fiction and, anyway, Winston was tortured into submission. Kurt Wise—and presumably others like him who are less candid—has suffered no such physical coercion. But, as I hinted at the end of my previous column, I do wonder whether childhood indoctrination could wreak a sufficiently powerful brainwashing effect to account for this bizarre phenomenon.

Whatever the underlying explanation, this example suggests a fascinating, if pessimistic, conclusion about human psychology. It implies that there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence. Depending upon how many Kurt Wises are out there, it could mean that we are completely wasting our time arguing the case and presenting the evidence for evolution. We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.

Can you imagine believing that and at the same time accepting a salary, month after month, to teach science? Even at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee? I’m not sure that I could live with myself. And I think I would curse my God for leading me to such a pass. &lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that Reverend Bradshaws&#8217; take is pretty much on the money.  As evidence, I am posting the following article about Kurt Wise, Un. of Chicago BS in geology, Harvard PhD in paleontology (thesis adviser Stephen J. Gould), young earth creationist, written by Richard Dawkins.   If somebody as intelligent as Dr. Wise can be so brainwashed, what hope is there for the average born again with average or less intelligence.</p>
<p><em>Sadly, an Honest Creationist<br />
by Richard Dawkins</p>
<p>The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 4.</p>
<p>Creation “scientists” have more need than most of us to parade their degrees and qualifications, but it pays to look closely at the institutions that awarded them and the subjects in which they were taken. Those vaunted Ph.D.s tend to be in subjects such as marine engineering or gas kinetics rather than in relevant disciplines like zoology or geology. And often they are earned not at real universities, but at little-known Bible colleges deep in Bush country.</p>
<p>There are, however, a few shining exceptions. Kurt Wise now makes his living at Bryan College (motto “Christ Above All”) located in Dayton, Tennessee, home of the famed Scopes trial. And yet, he originally obtained an authentic degree in geophysics from the University of Chicago, followed by a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard, no less, where he studied under (the name is milked for all it is worth in creationist propaganda) Stephen Jay Gould.</p>
<p>Kurt Wise is a contributor to In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, a compendium edited by John F. Ashton (Ph.D., of course). I recommend this book. It is a revelation. I would not have believed such wishful thinking and self-deception possible. At least some of the authors seem to be sincere, and they don’t water down their beliefs. Much of their fire is aimed at weaker brethren who think God works through evolution, or who clutch at the feeble hope that one “day” in Genesis might mean not twenty-four hours but a hundred million years. These are hard-core “young earth creationists” who believe that the universe and all of life came into existence within one week, less than 10,000 years ago. And Wise—flying valiantly in the face of reason, evidence, and education—is among them. If there were a prize for Virtuoso Believing (it is surely only a matter of time before the Templeton Foundation awards one) Kurt Wise, B.A. (Chicago), Ph.D. (Harvard), would have to be a prime candidate.</p>
<p>Wise stands out among young earth creationists not only for his impeccable education, but because he displays a modicum of scientific honesty and integrity. I have seen a published letter in which he comments on alleged “human bones” in Carboniferous coal deposits. If authenticated as human, these “bones” would blow the theory of evolution out of the water (incidentally giving lie to the canard that evolution is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific: J. B. S. Haldane, asked by an overzealous Popperian what empirical finding might falsify evolution, famously growled, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!”). Most creationists would not go out of their way to debunk a promising story of human remains in the Pennsylvanian Coal Measures. Yet Wise patiently and seriously examined the specimens as a trained paleontologist, and concluded unequivocally that they were “inorganically precipitated iron siderite nodules and not fossil material at all.” Unusually among the motley denizens of the “big tent” of creationism and intelligent design, he seems to accept that God needs no help from false witness.</p>
<p>All the more interesting, then, to read his personal testimony in In Six Days. It is actually quite moving, in a pathetic kind of way. He begins with his childhood ambition. Where other boys wanted to be astronauts or firemen, the young Kurt touchingly dreamed of getting a Ph.D. from Harvard and teaching science at a major university. He achieved the first part of his goal, but became increasingly uneasy as his scientific learning conflicted with his religious faith. When he could bear the strain no longer, he clinched the matter with a Bible and a pair of scissors. He went right through from Genesis 1 to Revelations 22, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific worldview were true. At the end of this exercise, there was so little left of his Bible that</p>
<p>    . . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.</p>
<p>See what I mean about pathetic? Most revealing of all is Wise’s concluding paragraph:</p>
<p>    Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.</p>
<p>See what I mean about honest? Understandably enough, creationists who aspire to be taken seriously as scientists don’t go out of their way to admit that Scripture—a local origin myth of a tribe of Middle-Eastern camel-herders—trumps evidence. The great evolutionist John Maynard Smith, who once publicly wiped the floor with Duane P. Gish (up until then a highly regarded creationist debater), did it by going on the offensive right from the outset and challenging him directly: “Do you seriously mean to tell me you believe that all life was created within one week?”</p>
<p>Kurt Wise doesn’t need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have a mind capable of such doublethink. It reminds me of Winston Smith in 1984 struggling to believe that two plus two equals five if Big Brother said so. But that was fiction and, anyway, Winston was tortured into submission. Kurt Wise—and presumably others like him who are less candid—has suffered no such physical coercion. But, as I hinted at the end of my previous column, I do wonder whether childhood indoctrination could wreak a sufficiently powerful brainwashing effect to account for this bizarre phenomenon.</p>
<p>Whatever the underlying explanation, this example suggests a fascinating, if pessimistic, conclusion about human psychology. It implies that there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence. Depending upon how many Kurt Wises are out there, it could mean that we are completely wasting our time arguing the case and presenting the evidence for evolution. We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.</p>
<p>Can you imagine believing that and at the same time accepting a salary, month after month, to teach science? Even at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee? I’m not sure that I could live with myself. And I think I would curse my God for leading me to such a pass. </em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael L</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-117668</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael L</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:25:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/11/fundamental-mistakes-about-evolution/#comment-117668</guid>
		<description>I just quickly scanned some of Dr. McGrath&#039;s ID posts.  There&#039;s some good stuff there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just quickly scanned some of Dr. McGrath&#8217;s ID posts.  There&#8217;s some good stuff there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk

Served from: blogs.discovermagazine.com @ 2012-02-14 18:25:36 -->
