In biology class they can learn about evolution and ID. In sex ed class they can learn about abstinence and about sex-is-fun, and about the usefulness of gay sex as a method to avoid pregnancy prior to marriage.

Of course gravity is a theory; some people understand that things fall because angels lower them.

Some people feel only those who have undergone years of training should eb allowed to practice medice. Others feel that anyone with their own herbs and needles should practice? Why have arbitrary rules when people can decide for themselves?

I might add on the 2LoT / entropy business that there are plenty of
simple examples of order spontaneously arising from disorder.
Thermodynamics is an exercise an energetics and doesn’t rule out the
possibility of spontaneous emergence of order in other domains.
One of the problems with elementary physics texts is that they use
misleading examples to illustrate the 2LoT. For example, mix blue
and red balls and they will never sort themselves out again …

… except if the red balls are twice as big as the blue balls, in which
case shaking the mix will cause the red balls to segregate to the
top. Separation methods along the same or comparable lines are
common in industrial processes, for example refining of ores; and if
that sounds like too “intelligent” an example, unwanted separation
of mixtures can be a real problem in materials handling.

Of course, crystals are obvious examples of order rising from
disorder, snowflakes being the common illustration. For those
impressed by dubious probability arguments relative to 2LoT,
it is worthwhile to point out that from the point of view of
simple mechanical arrangements, the probability that sodium and
chlorine atoms could arrange themselves in neat alternation in
a cube 100 atoms on a side is 2^500,000 = 10^150,515 … when
such a tiny salt crystal is perfectly ordinary.

It should also be noted that the 2LoT argument is being
rephrased these days in information theory terms: “mindless
processes cannot produce information” or “only an intelligence
can produce information”. This is sometimes referred to as the
“law of conservation of information”, though most try to just
imply it because it can’t be found in the physics books. CHEERS — MRG

Thanks for noticing, X. I didn’t expect Tom to look at (or understand) them – as I said in my first comment (above), “Ignorance is a virtue with creationists” – they celebrate their ignorance.

Philip Johnson, the father of intelligent design creationism (who is getting an award from the famous Bible college Biola University for having “a clear evangelical Christian testimont and having demonstrated “significant service and achievement over an extended period of time, which…is relevant to the mission of the university” – see http://christianpost.com/article/20081219/biola-to-feature-leading-christian-apologist-godfather-of-intelligent-design.htm) once said that average laypersons understood more about science than PhD scientists.

Anyway, I wanted to leave you and other readers with a link to another resource that might help you see where delusional evolution-deniers like Tom are coming from. It’s Dr. Barbara Forrest’s paper, “Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals,” available at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf

Peace.

I would like to think that those of us who read Carl’s column are interested in broadening our minds with all the knowledge available to us. However, it is obvious from this thread which took me most of my morning to read through that we have not risen above the tendency to attack irrelevant issues in order to make our opponent appear less credible or ignorant. I am particularly appalled at the latest comments assertions that “Tom” must be a horrible parent and that he is polluting his children’s minds which are born “pure and atheistic, without a knowledge of god.” Really, are we all so judgmental and sure of the path of science?
I grew up with no knowledge of religion, instead I had science, my father was a Geologist and loved to show me fossils and rock samples. It is not surprising that I therefore have trouble reconciling religious “truths” today, I must look at anything that proclaims itself absolute with an eye that says “where is the evidence?” However that does not mean that I can say definitively God does not exist, nor that he/she does not have a hand in how evolution occurs. The objective scientific mind requires evidence that can be confirmed by review to prove or disprove anything, and is always open to new evidence.

What I see here is misunderstanding. Both sides present their ‘evidence’ in the form of specific articles located on the internet. Not all knowledge here is peer reviewed, nor is it necessarily verified, however for the purpose of this I will grant it that assumption. Those in support of evolution are presenting links and offering the scientific literature available in PubMed. As a college student myself, I have used these databases and often find papers that are technically beyond my knowledge, even after 3 1/2 years of biology. To the scientist it may be obvious proof, but the layman may not find it as solid or understand why it is proof. On the flip side, the Creationist is using articles to “disprove” Darwinian evolution which in fact are discussing refinements within evolutionary theory itself, rather than its invalidity. At one point, he refers to Cataclysm! by D.S. Allan, citing its references to what he believes is evidence of the deluge in Pleistocene fossils. The Pleistocene era is cited in the book as from 1.8 mya to about 100,000 years ago, well outside his accepted age of the Earth. It seems he is willing to accept only the part of the work that supports him, disregarding the rest.

A further note on understanding: the Evolutionists repeatedly profess the request that “Tom” read the literature, I agree, before you tackle a topic and agree to debate anyone on it, you might want to ask your kids, since they’re learning it in school. An understanding of genomes, what they are and what they are composed of is helpful in avoiding the wrong conclusion. For example, the article cited about Opossum and Human DNA similarities: the article tells us that the evolution in the primate genetic code occurred for the most part outside of the protein-coding regions. The 20,000 protein-coding genes we ’share’ are not the entire content of our genetic code, instead the article is telling us that introns, the ‘non-coding’ regions between classical genes (exons) are in fact not just junk thrown in, instead they are important in regulation. It does not mean that we have the exact same code as opossums.

Finally, I really would like to understand why the adaptation of an organism in response to a predatory presence being heritable is such contradictory to Evolutionary theory. If anyone can explain that to me? Is epigenetics and methylation being considered evidence of “mind over matter?” ’cause all I got was the impression that Tom believed the only difference between species was the will to change their methylation and therefore expression. Also I get the feeling that he believes hormones are eqiuvalent to conscious action by the birds. If mind really is in control of matter, my conviction should be enough to do just about anything.

Way back up in the thread I noticed that Paul presented a few links. Tom, however, in typical YEC fashion, declares Reality to be different than it is. In his fantasy world Paul did not in fact present some links. It is also clear that Tom did not read them.

Links do not make an argument valid. What makes an argument valid is being able to demonstrate that the argument reflects Reality. YEC arguments do not reflect Reality and no link will change that. YECs, however, will never, ever acknowledge this simple fact.

This is why debating YECs makes as much sense as banging your head against a wall repeatedly until you pass out.

The courts have not (yet) found that subjecting innocent children to the lies and deceit of YEC or OEC propaganda is “criminal,” just as it has not (yet) been determined that subjecting children to the lies and deceit and brutality of religion to convert them from the innocence of atheism (all children are born free of any knowledge or fear of God) to the harsh realities of religion is “criminal.” But that’s another topic for another time.

I have to agree that it is probable that Tom is indeed reasonably intelligent. What I have found is that having intelligence or in the case of my friend intelligence combined with a pretty good engineering education simply gives them the ability to concoct ever more complex methods of convincing themselves that their belief system is valid. Essentially it allows them to produce far more complex contortions which they employ to make it appear their beliefs are indeed valid in the face of the facts. They also have a greater ability to filter the data to cherry-pick facts that appear to support their beliefs while generating even more complex and convoluted arguments as to why the rest of the facts can be ignored and brushed under the rugs.

I also agree that it is scary to think what his poor kids must have to endure. I personally think that what it appears he might be doing to his kids – assuming our suspicions are indeed correct and he tries as hard as he can to substitute his drivel for a real education in science – is nothing short of criminal. Kids have an innocent mind easily corrupted by the lies and deceit employed by YECs and it is a shame to see what it can do to many of them.

As for your comments about how his views reflect on those of other religious people I have come to the conclusion that there are two kinds of religious individuals – those that wrap their beliefs around a respect for Reality and those that attempt to impose their beliefs on Reality. I generally find the former to be pleasant individuals that choose to believe in something for a variety of reasons often including a level of comfort or hope whereas the latter kind are… well, there is not much nice I can say here so I think I will just say that I find them distasteful and unpleasant.

Perhaps we will meet again. I have studied this subject in great detail from the perspective of pretty much every discipline that is involved and while I cannot claim the knowledge level of the true specialists in each discipline I can say I have a relatively deep understanding over a very broad scope. I find it both fascinating and amazing and well worth the effort to understand. After all, we are members of the first culture to actually have a reasonably complete and accurate understanding of how we came to be and it is unfortunate that some of us cannot accept the truth and prefer instead to stick their heads in the sand in an effort to make it all go away.

Sadly, I think you are right that this has been a waste of time. I had thought that maybe Tom was a decent person who was engaging in hyperbole for fun, but it appears that he is in earnest in his believes that his poorly constructed arguments of insult and ignorant assertion are correct. And it is true that one just cannot have a productive discussion with someone so lacking in good faith or decency. I, for one, really hope that Tom was lying about having kid, because I would have to weep for those poor children with such a person as a role model. I know my father taught me to never pick fights, and to show others respect until they show themselves unworthy of it, and he always taught those lessons by example. I fear Toms kids will never get those lessons, at least going on what Tom has shown here. What is more, I think that people like Tom, who so blind themselves to the world and to science, really do a lot to denigrate religion. I have known a great number of religious individuals with subtle, interesting belief systems that give them comfort while still allowing them to see the world as it is. People like Tom just gives many who are hostile to religion reason to look down on those individuals as well, and yet more reason for their hostility. That’s really sad.
On a final note, I don’t think that Tom is stupid. It often takes a great deal of intelligence to maintain such obliviousness, as well as to keep up a construct of the world that is so impervious to outside persuasion. Of course, the many logical jumps, examples of disordered thinking, and obvious delusions of grandeur indicate that, while smart, Tom might have some psychological problems to deal with.

So, xgecko, Paul, and JHB, it is has been a pleasure to meet you, and I wish you well. I hope to see you on this site again in the future when we can discuss ideas rather than trying to open the eyes of trolls. As for Tom, I feel very sorry for you, and it saddens to learn again that there are such unpleasant people out there so willing to insult so many out of ignorance. I think you need to revisit the moral precepts of your religion before you continue your engagement of others. I really hope you are a more civil person in real life.

Mel