Which do you believe in and why?

I believe in creationism. Intelligent design. There's no way in hell I evolved from a monkey.

Get your facts straight. Evolution is proved by science. Creationism is simply based on faith.

Which do you believe in and why?

I believe in creationism. Intelligent design. There's no way in hell I evolved from a monkey.
Now dont be so hard on the monkeys. According to my boss he could hire monkeys to do our jobs. So I guess I am a trainable monkey.

What monkey? Evolution doesn't even say that, it says that man and APES have common ancestors.

Now, Rev, you might be devolving into an monkey..........

And which is it, creationism or intellegent design, they have different precepts, a little anyway.


How old would you say the earth is? Where is the earth located in the universe?

Get your facts straight. Evolution is proved by science. Creationism is simply based on faith.

Evolution has never been proved by science.

Prunepicker

Nothing has been proven by science, that is not sciences goal.

You aren't attacking evolution so much as you are the scientific method. All new theories are always welcome in science, they have to be provable and better explain what is observable and provable than current theory. That IS the scientific method.

The problem with intellegent design is that it contains a faith element, which science cannot. A even bigger futher issue is that intellegent design in no way better matches what is observable and what is provable than evolution does. That would be why that nearly no one with an advanced degree working in a related field at a major university thinks that intellegent design is a better theory.

There are areas of science where there are competing theories, origins of the universe, is the universe contracting or expanding, dark matter, these are all not universally accepteted in the scientific community. Evolution is, it is a very well documented theory. Intellegent design is basically creationism lite, and creationism has some really huge problems, like the fossil record, and worse than the fossil record, it comes in conflict with some parts of very basic physics, like degredation of radioactive isotopes. You might as well claim in this day and age that the earth is flat. Oh wait, those people still exist too.

Nothing has been proven by science, that is not sciences goal.

You aren't attacking evolution so much as you are the scientific method. All new theories are always welcome in science, they have to be provable and better explain what is observable and provable than current theory. That IS the scientific method.

The problem with intellegent design is that it contains a faith element, which science cannot. A even bigger futher issue is that intellegent design in no way better matches what is observable and what is provable than evolution does. That would be why that nearly no one with an advanced degree working in a related field at a major university thinks that intellegent design is a better theory.

There are areas of science where there are competing theories, origins of the universe, is the universe contracting or expanding, dark matter, these are all not universally accepteted in the scientific community. Evolution is, it is a very well documented theory. Intellegent design is basically creationism lite, and creationism has some really huge problems, like the fossil record, and worse than the fossil record, it comes in conflict with some parts of very basic physics, like degredation of radioactive isotopes. You might as well claim in this day and age that the earth is flat. Oh wait, those people still exist too.


Nice post swake!

Facts can change opinions, opinions cannot change facts, or in this case the scientific method. Until people come to that realization, this debate will continue on and on.

If we all evolved from monkeys or apes, why aren't the monkeys and apes evolving now?

If we all evolved from monkeys or apes, why aren't the monkeys and apes evolving now?


Who says they aren't? Humans certainly are. Humans are getting taller, and browner as the races blend, that IS evolution.


evolution does not happen in just one generation

If we all evolved from monkeys or apes, why aren't the monkeys and apes evolving now?

This is the same way I feel on this topic. If we evolved from apes then it would only make since to me if they were continuing to go through the stages of evolving right now. Or did only a few have the ability to evolve into humans and those humans reproduced and multiplied into the world population we have today?

I will have belief in my faith.. definitely creationism.

God science education in this state is really, really bad.

Nothing has been proven by science, that is not sciences goal.

You aren't attacking evolution so much as you are the scientific method. All new theories are always welcome in science, they have to be provable and better explain what is observable and provable than current theory. That IS the scientific method.


Firstly, I'm not attacking anything. I'm simply stating a fact.

Secondly, there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution. It's totally faith based.

Prunepicker

None? Really? None?

Simply amazing. Try reading a couple of sites.


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution

Tell me, again, how old do you think the Earth is?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7348103/

Here is an interesting page I found on this topic. It goes back in the 5 million years in the past to what the human race is said to have been and then a look 4 million years into the future of the human race. Interesting.............

"Said to have been"? We have the fossil record showing that humans evolved in this way, that it really happened and when it happened over the last several million years.

The Universe is 15 billion years old, the bible says it's what? 4,000 to 6,000 years? How can we be finding human, not just pre-human, but true homo-sapiens remains that are so much older that, maybe 20 times older than 6,000 years?

Look, I wish more people would open your eyes and learn, but, this stuff is fact, it's science, and science doesn't care if you believe or not, it simply is. It's crap like creationism that creates such pointless distrust of education. Mistrust and the devaluation of education threatens this nations long term health. And your children’s.

You don't have to understand science to push a broom or serve fries, but if you want more for your kids, have them learn about the real world. Give them faith and a spiritual life certainly, but don't make that happen at the expense of understanding science and the laws of nature.

Look, science is about how the world/universe is, religion is about why. Do you believe the world is flat, the center of the universe and is 6,000 years old? Scientist have been jailed for questioning those "facts", and they were right and the church was wrong. Or maybe the whole space program is a fraud and your DirectTV is really brought into your house by gremlins. That makes as much sense as creationism. If you think the world is 6,000 years old, that people are the way they always have been, didn't evolve, are not evolving now, you are just plain wrong.

Science doesn't care that you are wrong, you are just limiting your understanding of the world and may well be limiting your kids as well. How can we have evidence of Sumerian civilization dating back 8,000 years, how can that be if the world is 6,000 years old? You know the Sumerians, we are at war in Samaria right now! It's Iraq, the same people! How can we have human remains in China that are 80,000 years old? If you want to argue with radio-carbon dating, fine, go sit on a atomic test range and see how not believing that "theory" works out for you. Science doesn't care if you believe, it's not about believing, but not believing science can really bite you in the ass if you aren't careful.

If intelligent design really were a superior theory to evolution, then it would be the accepted theory, if it had a marginal case there would at least be an argument in the scientific community. That is how science works. But, there is no argument in the scientific community over this, evolution is the unifying concept in modern biology. Just like the theory of relativity is a largely unifying theory in physics, creationism attacks both of these theories. And don’t think that there is some mass conspiracy about evolution that is being protected, that’s not how science works, like Darwin, like Einstein, if a scientist comes up with a new earth shattering theory or evidence that removes evolution in favor of some form of creationism, they are going to put it out, and they get that theory accepted they would be the most famous scientist in the world, like what happened with Einstein and Darwin. Scientist want that breakthrough, to be remembered like Planck and Curie and Darwin. The latest big breakthrough has been the sequencing of the human genome, which only backs up the theory of evolution. Did you know that humans have a tail? You know, the tail bone? That’s Evolution.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2005/db051218.gif

There's a pretty big ruling that's expected to come Tuesday regarding the teaching of Intelligent Design in our schools.

Intelligent-design decision expected Tuesday
Darwin’s defenders and detractors set for federal ruling

MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 2:42 p.m. ET Dec. 19, 2005

HARRISBURG, Pa. - A ruling in a landmark federal "intelligent design" trial is expected to be handed down Tuesday, according to court officials.

Judge John E. Jones III's response to six weeks of testimony could determine whether the concept — which attributes the origin of life and the emergence of highly complex life forms to an unidentified intelligent force — can be mentioned in public school science classes.

An advisory e-mailed Monday from the U.S. District Court in Harrisburg said "Judge Jones is expected to file his opinion in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case at some point" on Tuesday. The advisory confirmed reports passed along by the plaintiffs in the case, who are challenging a school district policy requiring references to intelligent design.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are planning a news conference in front of the Harrisburg courthouse where the case was heard this fall. Scientists from the National Center for Science Education, which assisted plaintiffs in the case, are flying in from California for the decision.

"We feel very good about the case we presented," said Eric Rothschild, the plaintiffs' lead attorney.

Defense lawyers said they will wait and see.

"There's not much that we can do," said Richard Thompson of the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Thomas More Law Center. "It's out of our hands."

The Dover Area School Board voted a year ago to require students to hear a statement about intelligent design before learning about evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps," and it refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.

Eight families sued to have intelligent design removed, contending that it is biblical creationism in disguise and therefore violates the constitutional ban on the state establishment of religion.

Jones' ruling could go in one of three directions, legal experts have said.

He could rule in support of the school district's decision that intelligent design in high-school biology class does not violate the First Amendment, thereby paving the way for the concept to be introduced in public schools across the country.



Or he could decide that intelligent design is unconstitutional because it's religion disguised as science.

Jones could also decide that school board members were motivated by religion when they voted to include intelligent design in the biology curriculum, but avoid ruling on whether intelligent design is legitimate science.

I personally feel you can teach intelligent design without making a religious issue out of it. There's just as much scientific proof backing up creationism as there is evolution.

How can you have ID without an appeal to some sort of higher power?

Believing there's a higher power isn't religion. The higher power can be anything. Shoot, the big bang could be considered a higher power.

Jack, what is the higher power if not some sort of divine being? Are you suggesting we were created by space aliens?

Court rejects 'intelligent design' in class

Tuesday, December 20, 2005; Posted: 11:16 a.m. EST (16:16 GMT)

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- "Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design.ap/index.html

(full text of the decision)

TAMMY KITZMILLER, et al., Plaintiffs v. DOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT and DOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Defendants.

Case No. 04cv2688

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

229 F.R.D. 463; 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14998


July 27, 2005, Decided
July 27, 2005, Filed

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Motion granted by, in part, Motion denied by, in part, Motion denied by Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 379 F. Supp. 2d 680, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15732 (M.D. Pa., Aug. 2, 2005)


PRIOR HISTORY: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3693 (M.D. Pa., Mar. 10, 2005)


DISPOSITION: [**1] Applicant's Motion to Intervene (doc. 61) DENIED.

COUNSEL: For Tammy J. Kitzmiller, Bryan Rehm, Christy Rehm, Deborah F. Fenimore, Joel A. Leib, Steven Stough, Beth A. Eveland, Cynthia Sneath, Julie Smith, Aralene D. Callahan also known as Barrie, Frederick B. Callahan, Plaintiffs: Alex J. Luchenitser, Ayesha Khan, Richard B. Katskee, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Washington, DC; Benjamin M. Mather, Eric J. Rothschild, Joseph M. Farber, Stephen G. Harvey, Stacey I. Gregory, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Christopher J. Lowe, Philadelphia, PA; Mary Catherine Roper, American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Paula Kay Knudsen, American Civil Liberties Union of PA, Harrisburg, PA; Thomas B. Schmidt, III, Pepper Hamilton, LLP, Harrisburg, PA; Witold J. Walczak, American Civil Liberties Union of PA, Pittsburgh, PA.

For Joseph Maldonado, Movant: Christian J. Dabb, Niles S. Benn, Terence J Barna, Benn Law Firm, York, PA.

For Ms. Heidi Bernhard - Bubb, Movant: Christian J. Dabb, Benn Law Firm, York, PA.

For Dover Area School District, Dover Area School District Board of Directors, Defendants: Edward L. White, III, Richard Thompson, [**2] Ann Arbor, MI; Patrick T. Gillen, Robert J. Muise, Thomas More Law Center, Ann Arbor, MI; Ronald A. Turo, Turo Law Offices, Carlisle, PA.

For James Cashman, Martha Cashman, Michael Hied, Sheree Hied, Cynthia Mummert, Raymond Mummert, Intervenor Defendants: John B. Dempsey, DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Stephen A. Serfass, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Berwyn, PA.

For John A. Buell, Objector to Plaintiffs' Subpoena, Foundation Thought and Ethics, Non Party Objector to Subpoena, Objectors: Leonard G. Brown, Clymer & Musser, P.C., Lancaster, PA.

For Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Intervenor: Benjamin W Bull, Elizabeth A Murray, Gary S McCaleb, Alliance Defense Fund, Scottsdale, AZ; Hiram Sasser, Kelly Shakelford, Plano, TX; Leonard G. Brown, Randall L. Wenger, Clymer & Musser, P.C., Lancaster, PA.

JUDGES: John E. Jones III, United States District Judge.

OPINIONBY: John E. Jones III

OPINION: [*464] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Intervene ("the Motion") (doc. 61) filed by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics ("FTE" or "Applicants") (doc. 61) on May 23, 2005. We [**3] will deny the Motion for the reasons that follow.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:

The procedural chronology of this case has been set forth in prior orders and is well known to the parties. The following brief recitation of that history is sufficient for purposes of this Court's review of the pending Motion.

On December 14, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants, Dover Area School District and Dover Area School District Board of Directors (collectively "Defendants" or "DASD"), in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. (See Rec. Doc. 1). On January 6, 2005, Defendants filed an answer in the above-captioned case.

In their complaint, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants' October 18, 2004 resolution and November 19, 2004 press release (collectively, "the Policy") facially and as applied violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (See Cmplt. at Count One). In addition, Plaintiffs state that Defendants' Policy violates Art. 1, § 3 and Art. III, §§ 15 & 29 [*465] of the Pennsylvania Constitution facially and as applied. (See id. at Count Two).

The Applicant is a non-profit [**4] corporation formed in 1980, which publishes and owns the intellectual property rights of the book Of Pandas and People ("Pandas") and the draft text of The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems ("The Design of Life"). (See App. to Intervene PP1-2).

On May 23, 2005, Applicant filed the instant Motion. The Motion has been briefed by the parties. On July 14, 2005, the Court held a hearing on the pending Motion in which FTE's President, Jon A. Buell ("Buell") testified before the Court. The Motion is therefore ripe for disposition.

STANDARD OF REVIEW:

The applicable standards for adjudicating a motion to intervene will be fully set forth within the analysis of the pending Motion.

DISCUSSION:

A. MOTION TO INTERVENE

As we previously explained, Applicant is a non-profit corporation which publishes and owns the intellectual property rights of Pandas and the draft text of The Design of Life. The Applicant argues that it intends to market its textbooks to public schools within the Middle District of Pennsylvania and that a ruling by this Court finding that intelligent design theory ("IDT") is [**5] religious would destroy FTE's ability to market its textbooks within this district. (See Mot. Intervene P20). Moreover, FTE asserts that such a ruling would affect FTE's ability to market its textbooks to any public school in the United States. The Applicant seeks to intervene because its pecuniary interest in the outcome of the litigation is real and will directly affect the viability of FTE. Id.

As FTE submits, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for two types of intervention: intervention as of right and permissive intervention. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 24. We will discuss the two types of intervention in turn.

1. Intervention as of Right

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 provides, in pertinent part:

Intervention as of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practicable matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect [**6] that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.




Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a). As we explained in our March 10, 2005 Order disposing of an unrelated attempt by parties to intervene in this case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has instructed that Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a) entitles an applicant to intervene if the applicant establishes that all prongs of the following four-part test are satisfied: (1) the application for intervention is timely; (2) the applicant has a sufficient interest in the litigation; (3) the interest may be affected or impaired, as a practical matter by the disposition of the action; and (4) the interest is not adequately represented by an existing party in the litigation. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3693, 04-CV-2688, 2005 WL 578974 (M.D. Pa. 2005); see also Brody v. Spang, 957 F.2d 1108, 1115 (3d Cir. 1992); Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592, 597 (3d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 947, 98 L. Ed. 2d 363, 108 S. Ct. 336 (1987). The applicant carries the burden of proving all four parts of the test under [**7] Fed.R.Civ.P. 24. See United States v. Alcan Aluminum, 25 F.3d 1174 n.9 (3d Cir. 1994).

We will now proceed to apply each prong of the aforementioned intervention as of right test to the Applicant's Motion.

a. Timeliness of Intervention Application

The first prong of the intervention as of right test concerns the timeliness of the intervention application. This prong is particularly significant as it relates to the case at bar. FTE argues that its Application to Intervene is timely as it did not learn that this case would affect its rights until after Plaintiffs served FTE and its President, [*466] Buell, with subpoenas on April 28, 2005. (See Applicants' Br. Supp. Mot. Intervene at 7; see also Buell Aff. P7). In that vein, FTE contends that prior to April 28, 2005, Buell had not reviewed or even seen Plaintiff's complaint or any other papers filed in the above-captioned case. Rather, FTE maintains that Buell had only a general awareness of this litigation through media reports. Id. at 8; see also Buell Aff. P6. FTE states that the discovery subpoenas prompted it and Buell to learn the specifics of Plaintiffs' [**8] claims and that subsequent to the discovery subpoenas, Buell retained legal counsel to protect FTE's interests. On May 9, 2005, FTE and Buell filed a Motion for Protective Order and/or to Quash Subpoenas and supporting brief in federal court in Texas. FTE asserts that during the same period, Buell took another step to protect FTE's interests by advising William A. Dembski ("Dembski"), one of Defendants' former experts, the editor and one of the authors who contracted with FTE to write The Design of Life, to take all necessary actions to protect FTE's confidential and proprietary information. (See Applicants' Br. Supp. Mot. Intervene at 8; Buell Aff. P9).

In response, Plaintiffs and Defendants argue that the advanced state of the litigation renders FTE's application untimely as it will cause prejudice, delay, and added expense to the parties. (Pls.' Br. Opp. Mot. Intervene at 5; Defs.' Br. Opp. Mot. Intervene at 7). In that vein, Plaintiffs assert that as of their June 14, 2005 filing, thirty-six depositions have been taken, including nine expert depositions, and only three depositions remain to be taken, combined with the fact that discovery was scheduled to close in June [**9] and the case is scheduled to go to trial in September. Id. "Additional defendants will mean more witnesses, depositions, and discovery, as well as possible additional pre-trial motions, threatening to delay the trial date." Id.

As we stated in our March 10, 2005 Order, timeliness is not just a function of counting days, but it is a totality of the circumstances analysis. Kitzmiller, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3693, 04-CV-2688, 2005 WL 578974, at *3; see also Alcan Aluminum, 25 F.3d at 1181. "Where a party takes reasonable steps to protect its interest, its application should not fail on timeliness grounds." Id. at 1182. The Third Circuit has instructed that in determining whether an intervention motion is timely, three factors ("Mountain Top factors") should be considered: "(1) the stage of the proceedings; (2) the prejudice that delay may cause the parties; and (3) the reason for the delay." Mountain Top Condo. Assoc. v. Dave Stabbert Master Bldr., Inc., 72 F.3d 361, 365-66, 33 V.I. 311 (3d Cir. 1995); see also In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 695 F.2d 494, 500 (3d Cir. 1982).

Plaintiffs filed the complaint in the case [**10] sub judice on December 14, 2004, which clearly laid out their contentions and the subject of the action, which made specific mention of Pandas. Buell's testimony before the Court on July 14, 2005 revealed that he, the President of the proposed intervenor corporation, was first aware of the lawsuit as early as January 2005, within a month of when the suit was filed. As of January 2005, Buell admitted that he was aware that Pandas formed part of the lawsuit. In addition, Buell testified that he has been aware of developments in the litigation subsequent to January 2005 through press reports, although he argued that the reports did not reflect FTE's involvement in the case. Moreover, FTE maintains that despite Buell's awareness of the lawsuit in January 2005, he did not focus on its potential impact upon the distribution of Pandas until April 22, 2005, when Plaintiffs served subpoenas on FTE and Buell, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking Buell's deposition and documents related to Pandas, its drafting, and its distribution.

FTE's arguments in this regard are both unavailing and disingenuous. Within one month of Plaintiffs [**11] filing the instant action and as noted, Buell was aware of its existence, as well as the fact that Pandas formed part of the lawsuit. At that juncture, as well as over the next few months, Buell received press or media reports concerning more specific details of the case. It is beyond question that this case has received intense media scrutiny and that it has attracted the attention of advocates on both sides of the issues [*467] presented. Despite this, FTE took no action regarding an attempt to intervene even after Defendants' former expert, leading proponent on IDT, editor, and one of the authors who contracted with FTE to write The Design of Life specifically addressed The Design of Life in his expert report dated March 30, 2005, which prompted Motions for Protective Orders to be filed by the Defendants and FTE. In the face of this, as aforestated it was not until May 23, 2005, that FTE filed the instant Motion. Because the President of FTE was aware that Pandas was involved in the lawsuit in January 2005, it was incumbent upon him to have examined the alleged substantial impact of the litigation upon the distribution of Pandas well prior to May 23, 2005, which was [**12] less than one month before the close of discovery. See Haymond v. Lundy, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18110, *13 (E.D. Pa. 2002) ("When a proposed intervenor knew or should have known of the pendency of a lawsuit at an earlier time, but failed to act at that time to protect its interests, that inaction will weigh heavily against the timeliness of the motion.") (citing Del. Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air v. Pennsylvania, 674 F.2d 970, 975 (3d Cir. 1982)) n1.

We are in agreement with the parties that the advanced stage of this litigation renders FTE's application untimely as it will cause prejudice, delay, and added expense to the parties. In that regard, we conclude that application of the Mountain Top factors, which we previously delineated, to this case demonstrates that FTE's Motion is untimely.

Although the Applicant carries the burden of proving all four parts of the test under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a) and has failed to do so with respect to the timeliness of intervention, in the exercise of completeness, we will analyze the remaining three prongs of the test in this narrative. See Alcan Aluminum, 25 F.3d at n.9; see also Harris, 820 F.2d at 596 ("Although these requirements are intertwined, each must be met to intervene as of right.").

b. Interest in the Litigation

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) requires that applicants demonstrate an interest in this action that is "significantly protectable." As we explained in our March 10, 2005 Order, the Third Circuit instructs that this means that the asserted interests "must [**14] be legal interests as distinguished from interests of a general and indefinite character. . .The applicant must demonstrate that there is a tangible threat to a legally cognizable interest to have the right to intervene." Kitzmiller, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3693, No. 04-CV-2688, 2005 WL 578974, at *3; see also Harris, 820 F.2d at 601. Moreover, as Plaintiffs submit, an applicant typically has a right to intervene where "the action will have a significant stare decisis effect on the applicant's rights," "the contractual rights of the applicant may be affected by a proposed remedy," Harris, 820 F.2d at 601, or the applicant is the "real party in interest" and "would have standing to raise the claim" itself. Alcan, 25 F.3d at 1185.

The Applicant contends that its sufficient legal interest is that if the Court were to rule that "Intelligent Design is the equivalent of Creation science," it would have a devastating effect on FTE's economic, educational, and expressive interests as it is the publisher of the textbook at issue, Pandas, and the publisher of a future textbook on intelligent design, The Design of Life. n2 (Applicant's [*468] Br. Supp. [**15] Mot. Intervene at 9-10). "Plaintiffs should not be permitted to shut FTE out of [the] huge market for its textbooks as well as the 'marketplace of ideas' without this Court permitting FTE to have a voice in this litigation." Id. at 10.

In opposition to the Motion, both parties contend that FTE lacks a sufficient interest in the litigation. First, Plaintiffs argue that FTE lacks a sufficient interest as the only stated reason for intervening is "to prevent economic loss of over $ 500,000" from the potential loss of book sales to public educational institutions. Furthermore, Plaintiffs state that "In addition to the fact that FTE could provide no factual foundation for this contention, such a commercial interest is insufficient to warrant intervention under Rule 24(a)(2)." (Pls.' Br. Opp. Mot. Intervene at 10). Second, Defendants assert that FTE's stated interest in the outcome of the litigation is remote and speculative. Defendants explain that it is by no means clear that a ruling against Defendants will necessarily have an adverse impact on FTE's interest. (Defs.' Br. Opp. Mot. Intervene at 4).

We do not find that the scenario raised by FTE, specifically that if this Court should find IDT to be the equivalent of creation science, which will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars to FTE, constitutes a "legal interest as distinguished from interests of a general and indefinite character." Harris, 820 F.2d at 601; [**17] see also United States v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 206 U.S. App. D.C. 317, 642 F.2d 1285, 1292 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Plaintiffs accurately submit that the United States District Courts for the Middle and Eastern Districts of Pennsylvania have denied motions to intervene for lack of a sufficiently protectable legal interest in several instances where the proposed intervenors' only interest was an uncertain and purely economic one. See Pennsylvania State Univ. v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Serv., 142 F.R.D. 274, 275 (M.D. Pa. 1992) (denying motion to intervene where proposed intervenor's only interest was potential economic interest in earning profit from sale of health-benefit plan if federal statute required plaintiff to offer its employees the type of plan offered by proposed intervenor); FTC v. Mercury Mktg. of Del., Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17730, *5-6 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (holding that proposed intervenor's application for intervention as of right failed for want of significantly protectable interest where interest asserted was for "tenuous future earnings" that could result if company to whom proposed intervenor had loaned money stayed in [**18] business); Haymond v. Lundy, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18110, *9-10 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (holding that interest that was not only "clearly economic in nature," but also "qualified" in that it was "contingent" upon happening of other events, was not sufficient to support motion to intervene).

In addition, we find that Applicant has not demonstrated a "tangible threat to a legally cognizable interest[.]" Harris, 820 F.2d at 601. Although FTE may be quite concerned with the outcome of the litigation in this case, the afore-mentioned concern does not rise to the level of a significantly protectable interest in the litigation warranting intervention as a party. Therefore, Applicant has not demonstrated an interest in the litigation to justify intervention as of right pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a).

c. Potential Impairment of the Interest

Once an applicant for intervention has established that he or she has a sufficient legal interest in the underlying dispute, the applicant must also show that the interest is in jeopardy in the lawsuit. Alcan Aluminum, 25 F.3d at 1181, n.9; see also Harris, 820 F.2d at 596. [**19] In making such a determination, the court is obligated to assess the "practicable consequences of the litigation," and "may consider any significant legal effect on the applicants' interest." Id. at 601.

FTE argues that it faces a "tangible threat" because financial success or failure of its textbooks is now threatened by Plaintiffs' prayer that this Court rule that IDT is purely religious doctrine. (Applicants' Br. Supp. Mot. Intervene at 11). Such a ruling by this Court would destroy, according to the Applicant, FTE's ability to market its textbooks to any public school in the United States. "More specifically, holding IDT to be 'religious' as a matter of law would greatly jeopardize FTE's continued existence as a viable entity as the potential lost income from the sale of Pandas would be approximately $ 213,334. . .FTE already spent approximately $ 49,630 to develop The Design of Life and potential lost income from its sale would be approximately $ 310,400." Id.; see also Buell Aff. P13.

As Plaintiffs submit, they do not seek an order prohibiting FTE from soliciting orders, raising contributions, or otherwise conducting its affairs. Moreover, to the [**20] extent that the stare decisis effect of an order declaring intelligent design instruction to be unconstitutional in a public school might require FTE to redirect its marketing efforts, that indirect, remote, and attenuated effect fails to "impair" FTE's interest.

As we have previously determined that seeking to intervene, to prevent potentially significant economic loss from potential decline in books sales to public educational institutions, is not a cognizable interest in the litigation which warrants intervention as of right on the part of Applicant, it logically follows that we need not determine whether Applicant's alleged interest as so expressed is placed in jeopardy by the case sub judice. Accordingly, the Applicant has failed to prove this part of the intervention as of right test.

d. Representation by Existing Party in Litigation

As we stated in our March 10, 2005 Order, the final prong of the intervention as of right test is that FTE must demonstrate that its interests is not adequately represented by the existing parties in the lawsuit. Kitzmiller, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3693, No. 04-CV-2688, 2005 WL 578974, at *5; see also Hoots v. Pennsylvania, 672 F.2d 1133, 1135 (3d Cir. 1982). [**21] Applicant must demonstrate that its interest is sufficiently different that the representative cannot give that interest proper attention. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has instructed that representation is typically considered to be inadequate for any one of the following three reasons:


(1) Although the applicants' interests are similar to those of a party, they are sufficiently diverse that there is a risk that the existing party cannot or will not devote proper attention to the applicant's interest;
(2) There is collusion between the representative party and the opposing party; or
(3) The representative party has not been diligent in prosecuting the litigation.


Kitzmiller, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3693, No. 04-CV-2688, 2005 WL 578974, at *5; Hoots, 672 F.2d at 1135.

FTE contends that intervention as of right is proper because its significant interests are not adequately being represented by any of the existing parties. (Applicant's Br. Supp. Mot. Intervene at 12-13). In addition, FTE asserts that its economic, educational, and expressive interests are "sufficiently diverse" to Defendants' interest in defending the Policy as Defendants are primarily concerned [**22] with defending the Policy that allows school officials to inform students "of other theories of evolution" regardless of whether the Policy promotes quality science education. Id. at 13-14. Moreover, FTE alleges that a lack of attention to FTE's interests has already occurred in the case sub judice.

[*470] In response, both parties argue that FTE's interests have been, and will be adequately represented by the Defendants in this case. Defendants remind the Court that they previously filed a Motion for Protective Order seeking to protect FTE's interest in the draft text of The Design of Life on behalf of Defendants' former expert, Dembski, a principal author of that text. (Defs.' Br. Opp. Mot. Intervene at 5). Additionally, both FTE and Defendants are clearly concerned with showing that intelligent design is not a religious view, evidenced by Defendants' answer, defense expert reports, and specific declarations to this Court, including Defendants' reply submission regarding FTE's Motion to Intervene.

After careful consideration of the parties' submissions and the record, including but not limited to the three typical reasons constituting inadequate representation as specified [**23] by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, we do not find that any interest alleged by Applicant is not being adequately represented by Defendants in this action for the additional reasons that follow. See Hoots v. Pennsylvania, 672 F.2d 1133.

First, at this late date, the Court would have expected a coherent statement of what FTE intends to prove or demonstrate if the Court were to permit intervention, as well as specific reasons as to why the Defendants are not adequately protecting FTE's interests; however, despite repeated questioning in that regard by the Court during the July 14, 2005 hearing, FTE was unable to verbalize how its interests and the Defendants' interests diverge concerning the merits of the lawsuit. Moreover, Buell's testimony revealed that the very experts that insisted on private counsel from FTE to provide confidential legal advice in preparation for and during expert depositions, Dembski and John Campbell ("Campbell"), which resulted in their being terminated as experts for Defendants, will be brought back into this case if FTE is permitted to intervene. It is absurd to the Court that Buell has now testified on multiple occasions that he would go to jail prior [**24] to revealing the draft text of The Design of Life; however, if the Court allows FTE to intervene, Buell would place that issue squarely back into play by FTE's apparent intention to use Dembski as its expert witness.

We will now discuss the three typical reasons constituting inadequate representation as specified by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, as they apply to this case.

First, FTE has not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that its alleged interests are sufficiently diverse than those of Defendants, such that there is a risk that the existing party, Defendants, cannot or will not devote proper attention to Applicant's interest. This is true particularly in light of the fact that both Defendants and FTE are clearly concerned with demonstrating that intelligent design is not a religious view. Additionally, Defendants assert that they adequately represent any generalized interest in IDT that is shared with FTE. (Defs.' Br. Opp. Mot. Intervene at 5). We agree. Second, as FTE has not raised the issue of potential collusion between the representative party, Defendants, and the opposing party, Plaintiffs, this issue does not warrant discussion. Finally, FTE does not [**25] state that there is a reason to believe that the representative party, Defendants, have not been diligent in prosecuting the litigation, nor could we possibly find any reason to believe that this is the case. Moreover, we find it incumbent to again note at this juncture that the Court's exposure to defense counsel as it relates to this litigation leads us to conclude that counsel have consistently rendered zealous, professional, and appropriate representation to the Defendants, which translates, in our view, to a finding that Defendants, through their able counsel, will certainly protect the stated interests of FTE as this case proceeds to trial. n3

We therefore conclude [**26] that Applicant has not demonstrated that its alleged interest is not being adequately represented by Defendants [*471] in this action. As a result of Applicant's failure with respect to each prong of the intervention as of right test, intervention as of right pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a) is accordingly not warranted in the case sub judice.

We will now discuss Applicant's alternative argument that the Court grant their intervention application under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b), which provides for permissive intervention.

2. Permissive Intervention

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b), upon timely application, anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action when the applicants' claim or defenses in the main action have a question of law or fact in common. Whether to grant permissive intervention is within the Court's discretion, but in making this determination, courts consider whether the proposed intervenors will add anything to the litigation. Kitzmiller, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3693, No. 04-CV-2688, 2005 WL 578974, at *6; see also Hoots, 672 F.2d at 1136. Additionally, [**27] if the interests of the proposed intervenors are already represented in the litigation, courts deny such application to intervene. Hoots, 672 F.2d at 1136.

FTE argues that permissive intervention is warranted as there are common questions of law and fact regarding this litigation and FTE's concern for future viability of marketing its textbooks to public schools. (Applicant's Br. Supp. Mot. Intervene at 16). Furthermore, FTE contends that this Court should grant permissive intervention because FTE will aid the course of litigation by vigorously opposing Plaintiffs' central theory, that FTE's science is tantamount to religion, which FTE characterizes as an issue that is only peripheral to the Policy. Id.

Both parties oppose permissive intervention. Plaintiffs submit that FTE's defense would present a question of fact in common with that already asserted in the lawsuit, namely, whether intelligent design is fundamentally a religious proposition rather than a scientific one. Plaintiffs maintain that FTE will not add any defense to the instant case that Defendants have not already demonstrated that they will present. (Pls.' Br. Opp. Mot. Intervene at 20). Likewise, [**28] Defendants oppose permissive intervention by FTE and argue that they adequately represent any generalized interest in IDT that is shared with FTE. (Defs.' Br. Opp. Mot. Intervene at 5).

After a thorough review of the record and in the sound discretion of the Court, we find that permissive intervention pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b) is not warranted in the case sub judice. First, in conducting our intervention as of right analysis under Rule 24(a), we concluded that FTE has failed to satisfy any of the Rule 24(a) four prongs necessary to establish to warrant intervention as of right. Consequently, we determined that Applicant's alleged interest was being adequately represented by Defendants in this action. In making these determinations, we have also found that Applicant will not add anything to the litigation, but rather, FTE's participation in this litigation will be merely duplicative of Defendants' efforts. As we explained in our March 10, 2005 Order, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that if the interests of the proposed intervenors are already represented in the litigation, courts deny such applications to intervene. [**29] Kitzmiller, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3693, No. 04-CV-2688, 2005 WL 578974, at *8; see also Hoots, 672 F.2d at 1136. Second and significant to note is the adverse impact that intervention may have on the original parties. It is readily apparent to the Court that FTE sat on any right to intervene it may have had for several months after having knowledge of the lawsuit and Pandas' involvement therein, and has now presented an untimely application for intervention that will necessarily cause prejudice, delay, and expense to the existing parties.

Permissive intervention under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b) is accordingly not warranted in this case.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The Applicant's Motion to Intervene (doc. 61) is DENIED.

John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

I personally feel you can teach intelligent design without making a religious issue out of it. There's just as much scientific proof backing up creationism as there is evolution.

Do they teach that idea in medical school? Do the biologists and biochemists that teach classes at OU Med tell you that's what they think? it being all about their field and all?

Really, come on, go ask someone that has more than a passing interest and education in the topic, see what they think, there should be a lot of people at OU Med with lots of impressive degrees in related fields that you can ask, how about you ask them what they think of ID vs evolution.

Make that statement to them about the "science" being the same, see what they say.

Swake, I doubt they talk much about it -- the creationism vs. ID "debate" (if one can even call it that) is more a subject for philosophers than MD's.

Do they teach that idea in medical school? Do the biologists and biochemists that teach classes at OU Med tell you that's what they think? it being all about their field and all?

Really, come on, go ask someone that has more than a passing interest and education in the topic, see what they think, there should be a lot of people at OU Med with lots of impressive degrees in related fields that you can ask, how about you ask them what they think of ID vs evolution.

Make that statement to them about the "science" being the same, see what they say.

I'm sure the college of medicine is no different from anywhere else. You'll find a variety of different opinions on the issue.

BTW, Midtowner is right. Creationism vs. ID has absolutely nothing to do with treating a patient.

I'm sure the college of medicine is no different from anywhere else. You'll find a variety of different opinions on the issue.

BTW, Midtowner is right. Creationism vs. ID has absolutely nothing to do with treating a patient.


Not in people with doctorates in Biology you won't. Go ask and see.

Okay, last night I emailed 10 biology professors at UCO. I've received 8 responses back. 4 believe in ID alone, 2 believe in a combination of ID and evolution, and 2 believe strictly in evolution.

Personally, I believe in a combination of ID and evolution as I do believe in a higher power. I actually find the two theories to be quite compatible.

I do not believe that man was 'created in a day' as one of the Genesis stories would have us believe, I find that to be allegorical mostly. I more-less subscribe to the God as a 'first mover' approaching the subject from a more Aquinas-based logical necessity belief.

I also think, however, that ID is *not* a biological theory, a medical theory, or anything remotely approaching "science", and therefore, if taught in school, it belongs in a philosophy class, a comparative religion class, or something of that nature.

Okay, last night I emailed 10 biology professors at UCO. I've received 8 responses back. 4 believe in ID alone, 2 believe in a combination of ID and evolution, and 2 believe strictly in evolution.

Who are the ten? what are the names, lets get them in on this debate!

Here's the way I see the big bang theory: "God spoke, and bang, it happened. " God is all powerful.
I'm sure when He created the solar system, it probably did appear as a big bang.


The time issue? Who knows, when He created the earth it may have seemed like an eternity to us. Remember, God's timing and our timing is completely different. To us 100 years is a long time. But, that's only a very small fraction of the time the world has been in existence.

I believe in evolution. I must be the minority on this site. I cannot believe that someone just snapped their fingers and created everything. Evolution happens every day, even if it is a simple virus.

We had the discussion at my school about how we should go about ID in our classes. One teacher wanted us to teach it during advisory (we all have this class, we do different things like teach budgeting skills, have assemblies, and do grade-specific activities) and I was so relieved when the principal nixed that idea and had the bio teacher do it. Parents wouldn't want me teaching their kids about this issue. They'd be coming up to the school carrying pitchforks and torches to burn me at the stake!

I believe in evolution. I must be the minority on this site. I cannot believe that someone just snapped their fingers and created everything. Evolution happens every day, even if it is a simple virus.

We had the discussion at my school about how we should go about ID in our classes. One teacher wanted us to teach it during advisory (we all have this class, we do different things like teach budgeting skills, have assemblies, and do grade-specific activities) and I was so relieved when the principal nixed that idea and had the bio teacher do it. Parents wouldn't want me teaching their kids about this issue. They'd be coming up to the school carrying pitchforks and torches to burn me at the stake!
Bandnerd, no, I doubt VERY SERIOUSLY that you are in the minority on the evolution topic of OkcTalk members. Most are probably like me and just find the topic to be in the "been there, done that" catetory and don't get engaged in non-debates just for the sake of what we (I) see as a pointless exercise.

Dressing up a religious position in "new clothes" called "Intelligent Design" doesn't mean that the emperor isn't actually still naked as a jaybird and something interesting to see. But, you're not gonna convince the emperor of that, are you, particularly not likely with so many emperors trotting around on their fine religious horses?

The Scopes Trial is ancient history, regardless of its current manifestations, and, as far as I'm concerned, I've got better things to do than to be part of this particular contemporary drama.

So, no, I would be shocked if you, and I, were in the minority here ... but who can say? :dizzy:

Just to be safe, you might want to keep a lot of garlic and crosses handy should the guys with pitchforks and torches drop by for a visit! :LolLolLol

Of course, there is always the 2001: A Space Odyssey model ....

http://www.biochem.wisc.edu/wickens/jpgs/2001_spac_odd.jpghttp://www.sfcanada.ca/spring2001/monolith.jpghttp://metaphilm.com/images/philms/2001-baby.jpg

... or this ...

http://www.look.it/2001/immagini/varie/df941012.jpg

... or this ...

http://www.duffgardens.net/media/images/2001.gif

what if God used evolution to create us? I'm developing a hybrid theory that i will be remembered for many moons from now.

btw, that msn site is weird.

Evolution is scientifically proven. I do not understand why fundamentalist Christians believe Creationism should be taught in science class...it is not science. Genesis and other books of the Bible should not be interpreted literally.

I'll leave it up to individuals to decide whether scripture should be interpreted literally -- and as long as they don't tell my hypothetical kids what to believe, I'll be just fine.

Science goes in science class, religion belongs in Sunday School.

Get your facts straight. Evolution is proved by science. Creationism is simply based on faith.

Science has never proved evolution. Mainly because the evidence isn't there. Only wishful thinking or a deep rooted faith that it does exist. Many scientists would do anything to have a shred of evidence to the missing links between speces. Scientist have gone great lengths to create evidence only to have facts get in the way. Does Jave man ring a bell? How about Piltdown Man? Nebraska Man? Lucy?

According to Darwin if evolution exists then archeological digs would produce piece after piece of evidence. Alas, there is nothing except species producing after their own kind.

I wonder why evolutionists never mention that Darwin later rejected evolution?

Prunepicker

It's funny prune... You attack the validity of Evolution which has been proved as a scientific theory ("theory" in science carries far more gravity than you might realize), but you state no evidence for your own conclusion.

If you care to examine the evidence that refutes many common "creationist" arguments, go here:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

It is true that many scientists will publish work about evolution -- that's their job in many cases. There is a whole branch of science dedicated to the study of the evolution of species over time. Due to the competitive environment of the academic world, and the somewhat loose morals of some individuals, it is true that many frauds have been perpetrated by scientists seeking fame and fortune.

For every fraud, however, there are hundreds if not thousands of discoveries that support the theory.

Let's be straight here -- evolution is supported by a voluminous amount of evidence both theoretical and actual. It is hardly a complete body of work, but it is enough to make a strong prediction that the theory of evolution by mutation is a valid one.

On the other hand, creationism is a belief supported by mythology and superstition. It is based upon the teachings of various religions dating back to the dawn of civilization.

One is philosophy (and I use the term loosely), the other is science in its most precise sense.

And as to your implied assertion that archaeological digs would "produce piece after piece of evidence," they absolutely do. There is an entire school of science dedicated to precisely those types of digs. It's called paleoanthropology. Here is a list of a few recent discoveries:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/recent.html

I have yet to see a creationist claim anything remotely based in fact or science. I invite you to be the first.

O.K., so I'm by no means as well read as you (Mid), but I would like to ask this... has mutations (or evolution) ever created a new species or family? I believe that it has only created changes within a species. The science I see (in the medical field) shows me changes within species of bacteria... MRSA is still Staph aureus, it's just developed (mutated/evolved) resistance against many antibiotics that it was once susceptible to. I just don't see how that type of evolutionmutation means that one can also claim that I came from a monkey, or that I can produce a monkey at any given moment. And, I know you want facts and proof, Mid (I'm picking on you, because you seem to have read more than most people who debate with you!), which I can't give you right now, because I haven't done the research that you have... I was just curious as to what you would say!

O.K., so I'm by no means as well read as you (Mid), but I would like to ask this... has mutations (or evolution) ever created a new species or family? I believe that it has only created changes within a species. The science I see (in the medical field) shows me changes within species of bacteria... MRSA is still Staph aureus, it's just developed (mutated/evolved) resistance against many antibiotics that it was once susceptible to.

So what you're getting at is that you admit that evolution occurs, but you have only seen it happen within the species.

Let's keep in mind that when we talk of evolution, we're not talking about monkeys turning into men. We're not talking about a human being born of an ape. What we are talking about is gradual evolution over millions of years. We're talking about adaptations, mutations, favorable traits replacing unfavorable ones, etc. In other words, to argue that your next child might be a chimp demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of evolution.



I just don't see how that type of evolutionmutation means that one can also claim that I came from a monkey, or that I can produce a monkey at any given moment. And, I know you want facts and proof, Mid (I'm picking on you, because you seem to have read more than most people who debate with you!), which I can't give you right now, because I haven't done the research that you have... I was just curious as to what you would say!

As to the common argument that we don't change chromosome numbers, etc. Science has proven that to be a bunk argument as well. If you are truly interested in some actual evidence of speciation, here are some links:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

(the second is a link to several studies and papers discussing macroevolution, changes in the # of chromosomes, etc.)

The bottom line is that with all of the actual empirical data we have in support of the theory of evolution is vastly superior to the utter lack of ANY credible empirical data suggesting creationism, and that from a scientific approach, there is no contest as to what science ought to say is the truth.

I might attack the intelligence of the individuals that still espouse the myth of creationism, but in many cases they are quite intelligent people who have been brought up with a poor science education, and taught to favor myth over substance. They're victims of the system :(

I just don't see how that type of evolutionmutation means that one can also claim that I came from a monkey, or that I can produce a monkey at any given moment.

Do people actually believe that is what evolution is? WOW.:congrats:

Evolutionists dismiss ID just because it involves an intelligent, higher power. But what if the science actually supports the position that these biological systems show evidence of design? Take a look at a simple cell. It has more information than the largest super computers, can replicate itself, produces it's own power, etc. If you're driving through Ponca City and see the refinery sitting there, do you say, "wow, that's incredible! And to think that just formed itself from a primordial soup over millions of years"? Or do you say, "wow, that's a major feat of engineering and construction"? Well one single cell is much more complex than any refinery, power plant or factory. When Darwin developed his theory, scientist thought the cell was just a bunch of protoplasm. They had no idea of the complexity of the cell.

OkieBear, so let me get this straight. Because you don't quite understand something, or because it's complex, it couldn't have occured in nature? Bravo for your logical reasoning.

Allow me to pick apart your 'argument.'


Evolutionists dismiss ID just because it involves an intelligent, higher power.

The part I put in bold is that which you cannot provide me with one shred of empirical evidence to support. An "intelligent, higher power"? Your logic has a 'missing link.' (pun intended)


If you're driving through Ponca City and see the refinery sitting there, do you say, "wow, that's incredible! And to think that just formed itself from a primordial soup over millions of years"?

Well, I choose the later, but you skip a whole bunch of steps. Missing link again.


Well one single cell is much more complex than any refinery, power plant or factory. When Darwin developed his theory, scientist thought the cell was just a bunch of protoplasm. They had no idea of the complexity of the cell.

And now we come full circle to your "It's too complex, therefore it couldn't have occured in nature" argument. Science, unfortunately has proven this to be not the case. I have posted links multiple times in this thread in hopeless hope that one of you might click on them and see what evil truths science might have that contradict your narrow view of creation. It is clear you haven't done this -- for if you had, you would have seen the part where science has postulated and expiremented and predicted exactly how the first single-cell critters formed (and it took billions of years when you have one-billion years, that one in 1.0x10 to the 23rd probability becomes a lot more feasible :)

Okie, if you want to have a real statement, give me something I can work with. I've provided numerous citations, links, studies, facts. All I can get from the creationist side of things is essentially the "I don't understand it, therefore it can't be true" line.

If only that technique would work for some of my law classes...

OkieBear, so let me get this straight. Because you don't quite understand something, or because it's complex, it couldn't have occured in nature? Bravo for your logical reasoning.
[/qoute]

He never once said his basis for believing life was created by a higher power was because it he didn't understand it!

If the origin of life (becuase that was the original topic) has so much evidence supporting it, then why is it still so widely debated? If evolution solely means change, then there would be no controversy, right? Wouldn't we all agree that things change? But where does that change come from... how did the change begin the first place? I went to some of the evidence for evolution pages that you've hyperlinked. I found evidence to support genetic similarities between species. I found evidence supporting all kinds of scientific facts about all kinds of physics and galaxies and things that aren't highly relevant to me, personally at this point in my life. I did not find evidence that said that life came from nothing, or from hydrogen. Sure there are "missing links" in the theory of creationism; that doesn't mean that life evolving from nothing is true, just because one can't "prove" that creation happened.

[quote]
Allow me to pick apart your 'argument.'



The part I put in bold is that which you cannot provide me with one shred of empirical evidence to support. An "intelligent, higher power"? Your logic has a 'missing link.' (pun intended)



What evidence is there to support that life didn't come from a higher power? Pure evolutionists believe that there was no higher power in the creation of life (an atheistic view). That's a naturilistic philosophy, or religion which isn't science. These people reject creationism and ID because it doesn't go along with their philosphic view that the natural world is all that exists. Scientific theory is around to try and explain that which we don't understand... a theory is a hypothesis and is either rejected or modified based on observation, data and experiments. Scientific data supports evolution, not the evolutionist's belief on where life came from. Evolutionists want to keep out a metaphysical explaination for how life came to exist, because it contradicts their philosophical views, not becuase it contradicts scientific fact.





And now we come full circle to your "It's too complex, therefore it couldn't have occured in nature" argument. Science, unfortunately has proven this to be not the case. I have posted links multiple times in this thread in hopeless hope that one of you might click on them and see what evil truths science might have that contradict your narrow view of creation. It is clear you haven't done this -- for if you had, you would have seen the part where science has postulated and expiremented and predicted exactly how the first single-cell critters formed (and it took billions of years when you have one-billion years, that one in 1.0x10 to the 23rd probability becomes a lot more feasible :)


It's been "postulated" and "predicted", but not "proven".. which according to someone on a earlier post, 'it's not science's job to prove anything.' I may be wrong but can the origin of life even be a scientific theory? Can it be tested and either approved or rejected based on those tests?



All I can get from the creationist side of things is essentially the "I don't understand it, therefore it can't be true" line.

Sure, I may not "understand" everything about creation, evolution and science and life in general. Even the most intelligent person on this earth doesn't "understand" everything! What I do know is that I am created in the image of a God, who loves me! It is illogical to think that God would love me so much that He would create me in His likeness and, then do the things that he does! It's so illogical, that I can see why people wouldn't believe it! But, He does! No amount of science can refute the change that has taken place in my life; a change that can only come from God... no man on earth could ever reproduce that kind of change. You need only to take a look at life that was once marred by sin, evilness and selfishness, but is now made brand-new... cleaner than a freshly fallen snow, to know that my life didn't evolve over eons from hydrogen, but that it was created by the creator and author of all life! That is something an evolutionist will never be able to argue!

The thing that bugs me is that although the evolutionist's views aren't "proven" beyond all doubt, they are supported my mountains of empirical evidence. The creationist's views are not, yet they hammer away with the "prove it!" argument. The point was made that evolutionist's can only argue for their theory of how we evolved once we were "made", but not for the origin of life, but by the same logic creationists can argue for neither. At least evolutionists are open-minded enough to leave room for corrections based on new empirical evidence. Creationists seem to be wearing blinders to any evidence that contradicts their absolute (and probably equally unproveable) view and base their arguments soley on personal feelings.

[quote=Midtowner]OkieBear, so let me get this straight. Because you don't quite understand something, or because it's complex, it couldn't have occured in nature? Bravo for your logical reasoning.
[/qoute]

He never once said his basis for believing life was created by a higher power was because it he didn't understand it!

If the origin of life (becuase that was the original topic) has so much evidence supporting it, then why is it still so widely debated?

Umm, it's not widely debated. It's only debated in this country and only by people who are NOT in related fields of study. The Catholic Church just came out with a paper saying that ID was bunk. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!

http://today.reuters.com/sponsoredby/amex/article.aspx?type=innovationNews&storyID=2006-01-19T155619Z_01_L19111788_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-CATHOLIC-EVOLUTION.xml

He never once said his basis for believing life was created by a higher power was because it he didn't understand it!

Actually, that's the gist of the entire argument -- that life is too complex to have been created by evolution.


If the origin of life (becuase that was the original topic) has so much evidence supporting it, then why is it still so widely debated?

Widely debated by a law student and a physician's assistant on an Oklahoma City message board? A hot subject in the news? Debated amongst people who are working with second or third hand information? I'd agree with that. However, when you're talking about real science, you're talking about something that documents observable phenomena.

Evolution is not a religion, a belief, or any of that. It's a theory which has strong underpinnings in research, experimentation, hypothesis. There are elements of evolution which have been "proved" and there are still others which never can be. Science's end goal is not to prove anything -- it's just to find the truth.

Let's be clear on what ID is -- merely a creation of creationists to get their religion into our schools.



If evolution solely means change, then there would be no controversy, right? Wouldn't we all agree that things change? But where does that change come from... how did the change begin the first place?

I have a hard time believing that you have any kind of background in biology if you can't answer that for yourself. You're a P.A., right? I'm pretty sure I've covered this and have posted numerous links which deal with the subject as well. I'll refer you back to previous posts.



I went to some of the evidence for evolution pages that you've hyperlinked. I found evidence to support genetic similarities between species. I found evidence supporting all kinds of scientific facts about all kinds of physics and galaxies and things that aren't highly relevant to me, personally at this point in my life. I did not find evidence that said that life came from nothing, or from hydrogen.

Some of those links were broken. Here is a page that seems a little better on the molecular level:

http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm#stanley



Sure there are "missing links" in the theory of creationism; that doesn't mean that life evolving from nothing is true, just because one can't "prove" that creation happened.

Correction, there are no missing links in creationism (let's be clear, it is not a scientific theory). There is absolutely zero, none, bupkiss in the way of tangible evidence. We have a Bible which sets forth a myth which a lot of people believe.



What evidence is there to support that life didn't come from a higher power? Pure evolutionists believe that there was no higher power in the creation of life (an atheistic view).

That's a mischaracterization. Scientists ("Evolutionists is not an accurate term) do not 'believe' anything. They only care about observable phenomena. Without faith, God is not an observable, tangible phenomenon. Philosophies are rooted in principles of thought and belief. Science on the other hand is rooted in what is observable, testable, and tangible -- there's a huge difference.


That's a naturilistic philosophy, or religion which isn't science. These people reject creationism and ID because it doesn't go along with their philosphic view that the natural world is all that exists. Scientific theory is around to try and explain that which we don't understand... a theory is a hypothesis and is either rejected or modified based on observation, data and experiments.

Typical of the ID movement to mischaracterize what a theory is in science. Wikipedia defines it well:


In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, or conjectures. A theory is in this context a set of hypotheses that are logically bound together (See also hypothetico-deductive method).

Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen, often, but not always after their occurrence is no longer in scientific dispute. In referring to the "theory of global warming" for example, the worldwide temperatures have been measured and seem to be increasing. The "theory of global warming" refers instead to scientific work that attempts to explain how and why this could be happening.

In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.

In physics, the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles, capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. A good example is electromagnetic theory, which encompasses the results that can be derived from Maxwell's equations. This theory is usually taken to be synonymous with classical electromagnetism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

-- remember, the theory of gravity is "just a theory". The standard for such a thing is very high. Lay people and scientists understand the word to mean two different things.



Scientific data supports evolution, not the evolutionist's belief on where life came from. Evolutionists want to keep out a metaphysical explaination for how life came to exist, because it contradicts their philosophical views, not becuase it contradicts scientific fact.

No, not because it contradicts anything. Let us define metaphysics to be clear as to what you are proposing:


met·a·phys·ics Audio pronunciation of "metaphysics" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mt-fzks)
n.

1. (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
2. (used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.
3. (used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.
4. (used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning.


Metaphysical study is not science. It has nothing to do with science. It is philosophy. It might as well be myth and superstition. Let me give you a few examples of metaphysical concepts: Beginners luck, psychic powers, etc. We're not talking about science which is why scientists do not regard metaphysical concepts as being anything that they concern themselves with.



It's been "postulated" and "predicted", but not "proven".. which according to someone on a earlier post, 'it's not science's job to prove anything.' I may be wrong but can the origin of life even be a scientific theory? Can it be tested and either approved or rejected based on those tests?

Again, you must not understand what was meant here. In trying to explain the origins of life through expirementation, science cannot "prove" anything without a time machine. It can, however, set up conditions and "predict" what probably did happen. The experimentation showing the creation of amino acids is not disputed. The explanation for the formation of the first organelles and eukaryotic cells is also not really disputed.



Sure, I may not "understand" everything about creation, evolution and science and life in general. Even the most intelligent person on this earth doesn't "understand" everything! What I do know is that I am created in the image of a God, who loves me!

So you believe you are created in the image of God because you don't understand everything? Go you.



It is illogical to think that God would love me so much that He would create me in His likeness and, then do the things that he does!


I concur.


It's so illogical, that I can see why people wouldn't believe it! But, He does! No amount of science can refute the change that has taken place in my life; a change that can only come from God...

Science doesn't deal in such things. As we've covered, religion is a metaphysical pursuit.


to know that my life didn't evolve over eons from hydrogen, but that it was created by the creator and author of all life! That is something an evolutionist will never be able to argue!

You still have yet to explain how you "know" anything like this. So far, you've attacked the concept of evolution without trying to prove ID or creationism.

I base my "feelings" on the bible, and while that may make me close minded, science has not provided evidence that bible is not true! I still don't think the evidence of evolution shows that we were "made" from some other natural being. Scienctific evidence shows phylogentic similarities between organisms. Just because two organisms have similiar genes doesn't mean that they weren't created from a metaphysical being. Evolutionists absolutely refuse to believe that there is something outside of the natural that created life, because science can't explain it... In my life, just because I choose to believe that my life was created by God and that I have a purpose, and I because I choose to not believe that I evolved from some particle does not make me "close-minded". I believe in absolute truth and my faith is grounded, which is something, like I said before that can never be "proved" by science, only by how I live my life. I don't think that the origin of life will ever be proved, becuase it's hard for science to test philosophy and religion. Which, is why the beginning of life is still debated!

Because I'm never going to prove it to you, Mid, or any other person that refuses to believe in anything other than science! You are right, science and religion are different! I'm not trying to prove my life with science. I'm going to live my life in the hope and assurance given to me by a loving creator. If that makes me ignorant, then so be it! I'll live life ignorant and peaceful and full of abundant joy. Which, like I said is something that science will never "understand"! You're right, I can't throw facts and figures at you. I'm not trying to do that, becuase I know that you will always argue back! It's not a cop-out, not being able to understand something. Science is an incredible thing! That I'm not well versed in biology, you again, are right! But every physiology class that I had, every time I learned about just how complex the human body really is, and how much more to the human body that there is that scientists still don't even understand and can't explain and never will only deepens my belief (once again not science) that we (life) are (is) not an accident! There is nothing un-metaphysical about a human brain! It's science, but it's so much more than that! So, I will choose to believe that my life has a purpose on earth other than to just breath and exist!

ps. I never said metaphysics was science! I only said that evolutionists (some scientists) believe there to be no mataphysical explaination for the creation of life, which is still a belief. A philosohpical approach.

I base my "feelings" on the bible, and while that may make me close minded, science has not provided evidence that bible is not true!

It actually does make you closed minded :)

And if you are going to make statements like "The Bible is true," I'll have to ask you how you know that since much of it refers to events that cannot be independently verified, some of it speculates that we will be attacked by Godzilla like monsters, etc. To state that "The Bible is true" in a way that doesn't account for silliness like Revelations is absurd. But okay.. that's fine :)


I still don't think the evidence of evolution shows that we were "made" from some other natural being. Scienctific evidence shows phylogentic similarities between organisms. Just because two organisms have similiar genes doesn't mean that they weren't created from a metaphysical being.

As I've discussed earlier, science by definition does not concern itself with metaphysical beings. Your argument is completely irrelevant to the scope of the inquiry.


Evolutionists absolutely refuse to believe that there is something outside of the natural that created life, because science can't explain it...

But it endeavors to. And again, "evolutionist" is an unfortunate term that casts those who subscribe to the views of science as something they are not. Evolution is not something that is "believed in" like a religion, it is something that is observed and tested. Until you can put God into a test tube, you're barking up the wrong tree.



In my life, just because I choose to believe that my life was created by God and that I have a purpose, and I because I choose to not believe that I evolved from some particle does not make me "close-minded".

Actually, you're right. But, you're accepting myth and superstition over scientific theory (as understood by the wikipedia cut/paste above). You'd rather have your fairy tales than the best explanation available to us according to our best techniques at testing and explaining the world around us -- that's fine :)



I believe in absolute truth and my faith is grounded, which is something, like I said before that can never be "proved" by science, only by how I live my life.

I'm not sure what you mean by "my faith is grounded," I'm not familiar with the expression. Absolute truth is a philosophical mystery, if there ever was a metaphysical subject, it is one.



I don't think that the origin of life will ever be proved, becuase it's hard for science to test philosophy and religion. Which, is why the beginning of life is still debated!


Do you believe the Earth is 6000 years old?


Because I'm never going to prove it to you, Mid, or any other person that refuses to believe in anything other than science! You are right, science and religion are different!

-- That's my argument for keeping ID and other religious concepts out of the science classroom.


I'm not trying to prove my life with science. I'm going to live my life in the hope and assurance given to me by a loving creator. If that makes me ignorant, then so be it! I'll live life ignorant and peaceful and full of abundant joy.

Good for you. There's nothing wrong with faith -- just don't confuse it for what it's not.


You're right, I can't throw facts and figures at you.

No one has yet tried... I don't think they exist.. not unless you want to show me that the world is 6000 years old...



I'm not trying to do that, becuase I know that you will always argue back! It's not a cop-out, not being able to understand something.

Actually, arguing that something can't be true because it's too complex is a cop-out.



(snip)There is nothing un-metaphysical about a human brain!

Really?? Like what? Neurologists are unlocking the secrets of the brain every day.


It's science, but it's so much more than that! So, I will choose to believe that my life has a purpose on earth other than to just breath and exist!

Don't forget procreate! That's the best part.



ps. I never said metaphysics was science! I only said that evolutionists (some scientists) believe there to be no mataphysical explaination for the creation of life, which is still a belief. A philosohpical approach.

Again, you don't seem to understand -- scientists don't dismiss metaphysics, they just don't care. When studying biology, biochem, etc., metaphysics, a supreme being, etc. are not even part of the equation. You're confusing two schools of thought and intermingling them to try and prove some deficiency that just isn't there.

***

Don't get the wrong idea about me, I'm religious. In fact, I think there is at least some credence to the concept of ID -- in other words, I don't think that evolution and religion necessarily conflict.

I just don't believe that such discussion belongs in a science class.

Then why do evolutionists (I use this term because not all scientists agree with the origin of life developing from hydrogen, as evolutionists do) use naturalism.. which in it's very nature is philosophy and not science? Their belief in 'No God', or no metaphysical realm is the same thing as my belief in a God.. religion and philosophy, is it not? God either exists, or he deosn't!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism

Why do they necessarily have to believe in 'no God'? Again, you confuse the goals of science with the goals of religion.

Evolution is not a philosophy, it's a scientific theory. Once you understand what a scientific theory is as compared to what a philosophy is, you'll understand what I've been trying to explain.

Maybe this will explain it so that you will understand where I cam coming from, Mid. Because, I have yet to see the theory of evolution not involve philosophy! Unless, you are simply talking about biological change, which you laughed at earlier, but that is the only definition of evoution that allows this compatibility that you speak of between an ID and evolution.

This is taken from http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp.

"What is a Scientific Theory?


Evolutionists’ pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, and—if there is—to ask what it is. As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined. This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation). Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists’ semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debate—vis-à-vis the empirical evidence—may proceed unhindered.
The word “theory” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:
theo·ry n. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.
Likewise, “science” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:
sci·ence n. 1 the state or fact of knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied
It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either “science” or a “theory” must (or must not) be attached. This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:
nat·u·ral·ism n. philos. the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance
Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of “science”—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is. The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism. It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific” than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God. While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God. “Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery,” they reason, “the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.” Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity. It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world. This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it. There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy: The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists. [It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and “natural law” emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.] "

The only way for the theory of evolution: that life came from hydrogen gas, is to believe that there is no 'higher power' that created life. Therefore, the only definition of evolution that fits a non-philosphical, or strictly science (and therefore testable) realm is one of biological evolution... which isn't the debate here!

Maybe this will explain it so that you will understand where I cam coming from, Mid. Because, I have yet to see the theory of evolution not involve philosophy! Unless, you are simply talking about biological change, which you laughed at earlier, but that is the only definition of evoution that allows this compatibility that you speak of between an ID and evolution.

I laughed at biological change in the terms that you described it. You giving birth to a monkey was your example I believe. Yes, that's a complete absurdity and further illustrates your lack of comprehension of even the basic tennants of the concept.



This is taken from http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp.


Before you get any further, let's just say that this site's mission starts like this:


This site was established to provide an intellectually honest response to the claims of evolutionism’s proponents (including, but not limited to, the likes of the “Talk.Origins” newsgroup and website).

We're not talking about an unbiased source, we're talking about a site that begins from the point of trying to prove its philosophy through pseudo-academics none of which are backed by any sort of credible academic or educational institution.

It procedes on much the same grounds that you do trying to highlight the holes in the theory of evolution all the while providing no evidence that supports its own stated belief.

Anyhow...

"What is a Scientific Theory?

Evolutionists’ [/quote]

Anything claiming to be an authority on science loses me with the word "evolutionist." The term suggests that such individuals are something that they are not. We've been over this.


pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, and—if there is—to ask what it is. As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined. This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims

In the study of semantics, you'll find that all definitions are arbitrary. The article procedes with a non-issue.


(such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation). Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists’ semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debate—vis-à-vis the empirical evidence—may proceed unhindered.


Hey, I'm still waiting for the evidence on that scientific theory of creation. Still none? But we digress...


The word “theory” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:
theo·ry n. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.
Likewise, “science” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:
sci·ence n. 1 the state or fact of knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied
It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either “science” or a “theory” must (or must not) be attached.

Wait just a dag gern minute...

In science: "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied"

In theory: "a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree."

I played this game a few times when watching Sesame Street as a child... Can you see what is the same??? The bolded text will explain it. The question your article asks seeks to reason a certain way without understanding what a definition is. A definition is an explanation of what a word is. Not a definition of what a word is not.


This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:

Again, here we're making the critical error that science is a philosophy. I believe I've made that differentiation. In the future, try to at least anticipate problems with your argument and not to ignore responses. It's less a dialogue that way and more a monologue where I respond to various articles you post -- and that's no fun at all.


nat·u·ral·ism n. philos. the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance
Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of “science”—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is.

"Evolutionists" agree with the dictionary. Writer of article does not.


The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism. It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific” than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God.

Not necessarily. A creator-God could work through evolution. In fact, the first (of the two) creation stories in the Bible wouldn't be all that inaccurate if you could just ignore the whole 7 day thing...


While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God. “Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery,” they reason, “the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.”

True -- religion = philosophy. Science does not = religion. This is not in dispute, and there's nothing wrong with examining the observable processes in nature without considering if there is some supernatural mythical being controlling it all.


Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.

This is an (untrue) judgment about the psyche of individuals the writer has not met. Is he psychic? I think we should start another thread if we're going to talk about psychics.


It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world. This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it.

No... I'd have to say that the misunderstanding would be believing this article's definition. The difference between science and philosophy has been covered... moving on...


There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy: The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists.

No one is arguing in favor of philosophy. If you want to teach creationism in a philosophy class, I'm fine with that.


[It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and “natural law” emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.] "

Which proves nothing. Heck.. astronomy emerged from the understanding that the sun revolved around the Earth -- something which we believed until the 1400's.



The only way for the theory of evolution: that life came from hydrogen gas, is to believe that there is no 'higher power' that created life. Therefore, the only definition of evolution that fits a non-philosphical, or strictly science (and therefore testable) realm is one of biological evolution... which isn't the debate here![/QUOTE]

Mid, you seem to think creationists are the only ones who are biased, while scientists' motives are always pure. Why is that? There are scientists working for drug companies who absolutely have a bias. It doesn't make them any less scientists, it just means they may skew the outcome of their research. I believe naturalistic evolutionists have a similar bias by looking at all evidence through the prism that there is no God-directed cause for change in the universe, and therefore it all happened by chance. If you are really open minded about the subject, there is a great book out called "The Case for a Creator", by Lee Strobel. He interviews distinguished professionals in the fields of biology, cosmology, physics, etc., from places like Stanford, Princeton and Berkeley. Many of them have rejected the idea of naturalistic evolution because it doesn't fit the evidence. If you're not afraid to test yourself, you should read it. If not, then maybe you're the one who is closed minded?

OkieBear,

Coming from your perpective, how could you possibly call someone else closed minded? I'm defending what can be observed right now in nature. You are defending myths out of a book of quesitonable truth. There is a vast chasm of credibility between our two positions.

Your argument is intellectually dishonest. You confuse the motives of certain scientists with the profession at large.

You also, as osupa chooses to as well have completely ignored my explanations and assertions as to the difference between philosophy and science -- that they're not even the same school or type of thought, they deal in different types of concepts, etc... Am I speaking Greek? What do you not comprehend?

Let's start with the basics then and argue point by point if you'd like... So Okie.. do you really believe that the world is 6,000 years old? Please cite any evidence that will prove this to be true.

You're getting a little worked up there, mid. You're an attorney, so read what I actually said, not what you think I said. I didn't call you closed minded, I said that if you weren't willing to look at some scientific evidence from the opposing position, then maybe you're the one who is closed minded. The choice of whether you are or not lies completely in your hands. But maybe I struck a nerve. hmm.

Okie, show me some scientific evidence. There is none because creationism by its very definition is not scientific. ID is based on the concept that evolution is too complex to be real -- a concept that has a real logical 'missing link'.

Show me some scientific evidence that me, a law student (not an attorney yet) cannot debunk with a google search.

Go for it. It hasn't been done yet!

Okie, show me some scientific evidence. There is none because creationism by its very definition is not scientific. ID is based on the concept that evolution is too complex to be real -- a concept that has a real logical 'missing link'.

Show me some scientific evidence that me, a law student (not an attorney yet) cannot debunk with a google search.

Go for it. It hasn't been done yet!

Let's start again, explain to me how the world is 6,000 years old. GO.