Comic Genesis Forums

Quentyn has demonstrated a practical form of science that is constantly shoved under the rug by most scientists, mostly because it assaults their beliefs on the universe.

See, Quentyn first checked to see if any real rats were visiting Colin. Not only was he able to rule that out, but he also discovered that his client was not really afraid of rats at all. In short, these night terrors were not likely caused by what scientists call natural causes. Instead, we must invoke intelligent design. Obviously, something intelligent, other than the rats, is causing these night terrors.

Despite how much scientists scream that intelligent design stifles inquiry by filling in the gaps with "God did it", they have yet to prove that natural causes account for everything. And intelligent design is already implemented in many fields of science, especially those dealing with crimes and medical mysteries (e.g. a lethal flesh-eating bacteria is spreading through a hospital, but it jumps too far to have spread without help by some psycho).

A few problems in the theory that natural causes (i.e. evolution and chance) can account for everything follow:

- A boy is found to have an IQ of 120, getting high marks in school, and is very socially outgoing... and yet, he has virtually no brain. Most of his skull is filled with cerebro-spinal fluid where there should be gray matter. How do we explain this if the mind only consists of random neurons firing?

- Bacteria move about using a small hairlike structure called a flagellum. It requires forty (40) proteins to operate. If you remove even one, the whole thing shuts down. How can evolution account for this? It would have to produce all the necessary proteins in one fell swoop!

- Natural causes have yet to explain the origin of information, and later on, intelligence. The problem here is that explaining anything as coming from a natural cause requires you to reduce it to a simpler form. With information, you must start out with at least as much as you started out with. Natural causes do not create information; they simply transfer or reduce it, which doesn't work if you're trying to backtrack to the origin of information. How can scientists keep claiming they'll someday be able to reduce the pencil to the pencil sharpener?

I personally think this idea that natural causes can (and eventually will!) explain everything in the universe needs to go. It's not even practical in matters involving crime and history. Tracking down your family's heritage requires you to invoke intelligent design, because you need to know who did what, and when. Intelligent forces make choices, and that is the key difference between them and natural causes.

If I throw a grenade into the middle of a crowded room, it has no choice as to where it sends its shrapnel and who it wounds or kills. The people have a choice, within the few seconds before it goes off, what to do to increase their chances of survival. Standing there in shock like an idiot is not a choice that will end in you waking up in your bed tomorrow.

It's my opinion that science will continue to crawl until evolution gives up the limelight to let intelligent design take over. Yes, natural selection has its place, but it is not as the guiding force against which all claims and data should be checked. There is evidence that points to a creator. Until we clear the field of this intellectual dishonesty, we won't make a lot of ground-breaking discoveries. We could've known a while back the appendix is actually part of the immune system, instead of some "useless part" we'd "evolved beyond", if the signs of design had been examined closely instead of shoved to the side.

These two theories are on a direct collision course. In the end, only one will prevail, giving solid evidence only a fool would scoff at, while the other sinks into the mire, its proponents continuely screaming about how "It's all true! You're just too blind to see it!" as they sink along with it.

We'll see just who the victor is soon enough.

Aye, we will, and the side you've so badly misrepresented has been winning for the last century and a half. But not -here-, please.

This is my opinion on the matter. I myself believe in creation, but I have respect for people who do not.

The subject of the beginning of the universe (and before the beginning) isn't a piece of cake.

I think it is good for a person to say, "I believe that it happened in such-and-such a way, and here is why I believe it, but I admit that I do not know everything."

Well... that certainly came out of nowhere.

If you claim to have respect for the Scientific Method, perhaps we should look at your arguments to make sure you aren't shooting yourself in the foot.

On the first point; no sane scientist would claim that neurological activity is random. This would go against the point of CT scans. The complexity of brain structure is currently the common accepted factor for general intelligence, not pure brain mass. (It would still be helpful to be able to cite the incident in question.)

On the second point; beware falling to the fallacy of the Z Factor, or the A->B, A->C, B->C logical fallacy. Just because the current structure of most bacterial flagellum malfunctions upon mutation does not mean that all structures, in all time periods, had the same property. To make an argument of this, one would have to show that there are no structures possible consisting of fewer components that function in such a manner, and that there are no structures that could have combined to function in such a manner. Proofs are hard.

Natural Causes have been found to decrease local entropy by increasing global entropy. It's a slippery slope to assume information only degrades, as humanity is constantly in the practice of local enthalpization -- and all natural laws apply to ourselves. Go ahead and try to violate one.

Collision may be the inevitable result, but it may also be the driving force to other possibilities. The wise choice is to use your noggin and figure it out. As history shows, this is not an easy task. It is not going to be done overnight. And carefully choosing what to say in order to support what you have figured out is important in helping others understand it.

Of course evolution is real, probability and natural selection demand it. However, what I think has happened is that people have carried the idea of evolution too far, using it to explain things that are simply too complex to occur in any timeframe, even over spans of millions if not billions of years. The odds of specializations such as echolocation, sight, and neural activity are so low as to be ridiculous. In some cases, natural selection outright countermands evolution, such as with the bat. (What possible, concievable situation could have favored a frail-boned skin-flapped rodent before it could fly?)

What evolution can account for are some occasional improvements, such as maybe the ability to process proteins more efficiently, or an increase in muscle density. In such cases, natural selection would work with it to help insure that the improvement would eventually filter through. But mutations are typically very small changes to the genetic code, and specializations are one-shot endeavours. It either works entirely, or not at all. Evolution can't account satisfactorially for this, which is where intelligent design enters the picture.

And yes, I believe in creation. Make what you will of it, I've said my piece.

I think that it is good for people of differing opinions to listen to each other and learn from each other.

http://www.yuoofox.com/images/scan0002-800.jpg
**Yuoo puts on his hippie outfit and sings.**

"Come on, people now. Smile on your brother. Everybody get together. Try to love one another right now."

Aurrin wrote:Of course evolution is real, probability and natural selection demand it. However, what I think has happened is that people have carried the idea of evolution too far, using it to explain things that are simply too complex to occur in any timeframe, even over spans of millions if not billions of years. The odds of specializations such as echolocation, sight, and neural activity are so low as to be ridiculous. In some cases, natural selection outright countermands evolution, such as with the bat. (What possible, concievable situation could have favored a frail-boned skin-flapped rodent before it could fly?)

The latter two are easy to show evolutionary pathways for - the steps along the pathways still -exist-. Light-sensitive pigments in simple organisms are improved by concentrating them into spots with directional capability. Eyespots are improved by dimpling the skin to give better directional information and primitive imaging, etc, etc. Neural nets exist from simple nematodes and jellyfish up to dolphins, gorillas, and humans. Each step is an obvious simple improvement on the previous one. Echolocation is less well documented, since the intermediate steps have been superseded, but there's no reason that it couldn't have happened, by direct analogy to sight. Both involve collection and analysis of wave vibrations, after all; the physics is even similar, though at different scales.

As for what possible situation could have favored a frail-boned, skin-flapped rodent -- might I direct your attention to the still-living flying squirrels and their marsupial analogs in Australia? Not to mention gliding frogs and snakes? Anything that gradually improves an arboreal animal's chances of surviving a fall will be selected for.

There is no scientific 'gap' that requires a Designer to paper it over. We don't know -yet- is the best that any of the Intelligent Design proponents has been able to come up with, and in several cases the very fact that they've tried it has led biologists to investigate and solve the supposed problem. Bombardier beetles and Venus flytraps come to mind in this regard, just off the top of my head.

Sigh...... I knew this would happen. This one's a La Brea Tar Pit, it sucks you in and won't let go. Let's not do this here. It'll just lead to all kinds of nastiness. If we must talk about this, let's take it somewhere else.

Arctyc wrote:Well... that certainly came out of nowhere.

Eh, I'd just finished most of the book and got all excited. =P Still have some fanboy tendencies and I've never been a fan of evolution. Just don't think it can explain everything.

I'll respond to your points as best I can, in a non-ranting manner, using excerpts from the book I read, Intelligent Design by William A. Dembski. Just let me state first of all that I ain't that good at arguing or have any degrees in science and mathematics. Read with a grain of salt, as always.

Arctyc wrote:If you claim to have respect for the Scientific Method, perhaps we should look at your arguments to make sure you aren't shooting yourself in the foot.

I've shot myself in the foot plenty of times when arguing. It's not a fun feeling.

Arctyc wrote:On the first point; no sane scientist would claim that neurological activity is random. This would go against the point of CT scans. The complexity of brain structure is currently the common accepted factor for general intelligence, not pure brain mass. (It would still be helpful to be able to cite the incident in question.)

To quote the book:

Or consider a still more striking example. The December 12, 1980, issue of Science contained an article by Roger Lewin titled "Is Your Brain Really Necessary?" In the article Lewin reported a case study by John Lorber, a British neurologist and professor at Sheffield University:

"There's a young student at this university," says Lorber, "who has an IQ of 126, has gained a first-class honors degree in mathematics, and is socially completely normal. And yet the boy has virtually no brain." The student's physician at the university noticed that the youth had a slightly larger than normal head, and so referred him to Lorber, simply out of interest. "When we did a brain scan on him," Lorber recalls, "we saw that instead of the normal 4.5-centimeter thickness of brain tissue between the ventricles and the cortical surface, there was just a thin layer of mantle measuring a millimeter or so. His cranium is filled mainly with cerebrospinal fluid."

Rather interesting, wouldn't you say? Makes one wonder what exactly the mind is, if it's not dependent on brain structure to function. As for the case that came before this (which you may be wondering about since I cut off the book), it concerned a man named Louis Pasteur, who suffered a cerebral accident, and yet became a well-known scientist. After he died, his brain was examined (a seemingly common practice among scientists, I'd say). They found that half the brain had atrophied completely. It was not at all in a functional state. And yet, Mr. Pasteur enjoyed "a flourishing intellectual life" even with his damaged brain.

I think we need to reexamine any claims that the mind simply "emerges" from brain structure and firing neurons. Not attacking anyone's point of view, but this is far too curious to be simply pushed aside.

Arctyc wrote:On the second point; beware falling to the fallacy of the Z Factor, or the A->B, A->C, B->C logical fallacy. Just because the current structure of most bacterial flagellum malfunctions upon mutation does not mean that all structures, in all time periods, had the same property. To make an argument of this, one would have to show that there are no structures possible consisting of fewer components that function in such a manner, and that there are no structures that could have combined to function in such a manner. Proofs are hard.

Now, now, I didn't say all biological structures follow this rule, and had no intent to imply it. Please don't put words in my mouth, okay?

My point is, it is very improbable that evolution and natural selection could produce this kind of structure. These flagellum are being defined as "irreducible complex structures". It means that they cannot be reduced to a simpler form because then they simple refuse to function. And evolution does not "save" proteins that do nothing, because they neither help nor hinder the organism. It is illogical, indeed irrational, to suggest all forty necessary proteins for such a structure were produced and then "saved" in the process of evolution until the structure suddenly appeared and started working. Evolution keeps little memory of the past, and has no goal in its intent. My basic argument (and those of other design theorists) is that such structures are far too complex for evolution to account for them. It simply doesn't make sense.

Still, if you want proof, I'm not sure I can provide it. I don't have the knowledge or education to pursue these things, though I can understand it. Look up Michael Behe sometime; he can tell you more about this.

Arctyc wrote:Natural Causes have been found to decrease local entropy by increasing global entropy. It's a slippery slope to assume information only degrades, as humanity is constantly in the practice of local enthalpization -- and all natural laws apply to ourselves. Go ahead and try to violate one.

Ah, but it does degrade. In fact, that's one thing I've learned about this world: everything decays. Ink fades, computer disks lose their charges, stone tablets errode, and books disintegrate. All of it is by natural causes.

And you missed my main point: information cannot be created by natural causes, only transferred or reduced by them. Only intelligent agents, such as you or I, can increase information. History provides a good deal of evidence for this. You can still find untouched places in the world. They are practically unchanged since the beginning of time. Natural causes have been at work there for a long time, and yet I contend you'd find little, if any information. Meanwhile, in the rest of the world mankind's knowledge is increasing daily, and information is growing. Intelligent agents are the reason we have such large cities, the internet, and countless other improvements.

Nature seeks balance to the point of opposing change. Only intelligent agents have the power to shape their environment to their liking, with the changes often varying according to the level of intelligence.

Arctyc wrote:Collision may be the inevitable result, but it may also be the driving force to other possibilities. The wise choice is to use your noggin and figure it out. As history shows, this is not an easy task. It is not going to be done overnight. And carefully choosing what to say in order to support what you have figured out is important in helping others understand it.

Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid. They are stupid because they believe only what they want to believe, either because they want it to be true or they fear it to be true.

You and I and everyone here can argue until we're dust, but in the end we each only believe what we want to. I'm sure I have some stupid beliefs that I'll shed as I become older and hopefully wiser. The problem is that there is nothing to prevent people from becoming absolute lunatics who refuse to believe the truth even when shown it. It threatens their world view, so they ignore it and pretend it's all a lie. Before too long, they end up as the resident grouch who's too set in his ways to learn.

Only by growing can we live. Stagnation leads to death and decay, and only learning can hold it off. I hope we can learn the truth before too long.

True fortitude of understanding consists in not suffering what we know, to be disturbed by what we do not know. -- William Paley

And evolution does not "save" proteins that do nothing, because they neither help nor hinder the organism. It is illogical, indeed irrational, to suggest all forty necessary proteins for such a structure were produced and then "saved" in the process of evolution until the structure suddenly appeared and started working.

That doesn't make any sense. What about the appendix? It doesn't do anything. In fact, people who have one are more likely to die from it, but we still have it. Evolution hasn't selected people without it just because it's there.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe in creationism, by the technical definition. I'm just not sure how the Creation worked, and by what means God creates. This means that, if the current state of affairs was formed the way evolutionists think it was, I believe God was the driving force behind it. I also believe that it's perfectly plausible to say "God did it" to fill in the gaps -- a dog wouldn't understand how we get a computer to work, but there is a reasonable, logical explanation for the process, provable and all that. The dog can't see it, but it's there -- why should we be able to understand everything God does and how he does it?

I think someone told me once that scientists have studied the red sea and have discovered wind flow that can, theoretically, part the water. Under certain, wildly incalcuable odds and conditions, it could, theoretically, be possible. The Ancient Israelites certainly didn't know that. They just said, "God did it." ...or Jehovah, or the LORD, take your pick.

If someone is willing to take the leap of faith that random atoms bouncing around from some theoretical exploded star (where did the star come from, I wonder?) could bond together and stay in certain configurations without rebonding long enough to form a specific pattern that allowed a living, moving, processing cell to form, I see no reason why they wouldn't assume proteins could do the same thing to produce a flagelluwhatsit.



...and in case y'all are wondering, I'm a lurker finally coming out of the shadows. I don't know if I'll post much, but this piqued my interest and I thought I'd add my two cents. I probably won't get too involved in the rest of the discussion (if it continues), but I won't make any promises.

Nome

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.

nome wrote:That doesn't make any sense. What about the appendix? It doesn't do anything. In fact, people who have one are more likely to die from it, but we still have it. Evolution hasn't selected people without it just because it's there.

Try doing some more researching on the appendix. It's a bit superfluous for adults and children, but for newborns it is vital.


My sister is a registered nurse.

nome wrote:[...and in case y'all are wondering, I'm a lurker finally coming out of the shadows. I don't know if I'll post much, but this piqued my interest and I thought I'd add my two cents. I probably won't get too involved in the rest of the discussion (if it continues), but I won't make any promises. Nome

Hey dude.....

You don't need to hide and don't be afraid to jump into the forum if you like........pretty much EVERYBODY'S welcome here.

If you've been lurkin' in the shadows checkin' all of this out, you've seen everything covered from off-the-wall theorys to truely nauseating puns...we accept folks pretty much for what they are.

As far as I can see you'ld be welcome anytime.

Shaaruuk

My take on the whole "Evolution vs Creation" design is as follows: God's the one creating everything. But he works on a Cosmic scale, and things such as Evolution are his tools to shape the Universe. Instead of creating all the creatures in Nature from nothing, he started with protein chains, and over the eons, made all the creatures in Nature through the process of Evolution and Natural Selection, keeping what worked and weeding out what didn't.

It works for me. I usually tend to see God as a Cosmic, Universal Force rather then as a big, bearded guy sitting on a cloud, anyways.

The only problem is that
1)The theory of evolution doesn't hold water when subjected to real, critical, scientific standards. It's strung together out of hypothetical flights of fancy, selectively exclusive material "evidence," drastically slanted interpretations of data, the slovenly, bloated inertia of hoary traditionalism and sub-sapient pop culture, Models and formulae that literally exist nowhere in nature (for instance, the "geologic column" which exists nowhere in the world except school textbooks) and mildewed "intellectuals" that believe in evolution for no other reason than that this was what THEY were taught when THEY were in school, and anyone who aired any alternative hypothesis was flunked out.

2)Theologically speaking, believing in "theistic evolution" requires you to believe that God is a bald-faced liar--- not only about the origin of the universe, but of the origin and fall of man, and how sin **and death** entered into the world. The first chapter of the bible isn't just a throwaway fairy tale, it's an integral part of the whole bible story.... which is why people who hate Christianity try so hard to convince people that the first book of the Bible is false.

"Theistic evolution" was invented by people who were intimidated by the dog-and-pony show evolutionists managed to rally up. Rather than be skeptical of the horn-blowing acolytes of this new religion--- where life, the universe, and everything in between literally <I>happened by accident</i>--- they fumbled and futtered and stuttered and pulled a half-assed explanation out of the air, so that people wouldn't make fun of them for being "unscientific"--- Like the little fat girl in high school who dressed like the head of the cheerleading squad because she thought it would make her less unpopular.

Don't be so ready to jump on whatever bandwagon comes tooting and banging down the road.

Uh, no offense, Ralph, but are you saying that the tons of physical evidence to Evolution, called Fossils, many dating over thousands of years, are fake? If so, considering how damn many fossils there are out there, it's one freaking big conspiracy, bordering on the kind of stuff Jack T. Chick usually comes up with.

And in no way am I calling God a liar. ...But I'll point out that there's no evidence God actually wrote the Book of Genesis, which makes everything in it conjecture. Especially if you take into account apocryphical alternates with different details. For exemple, is Eve the first woman, or is it Lillith?

And as for the whole "six days, and on the seven he rested" deal, I think Georges Burns covered it best in "Oh God": "When I woke up this morning, it was the Renaissance." A day for God probably isn't the same as a day for us. He's Eternal and transcends time. He doesn't have to follow our calendar.

I confess, I'm Catholic, but semi-agnostic. I believe in God, but I also acknowledge what I'm shown. And I've been shown a lot of solid evidence to the existance of Evolution, as opposed to Creationism, which relies on the belief that God basically "poofed" the Universe into existance in a six-part magic act.

I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, I believe in the Holy Spirit... ...But I also acknowledge scientific fact when I see it.

LoneWolf23k wrote:And in no way am I calling God a liar. ...But I'll point out that there's no evidence God actually wrote the Book of Genesis, which makes everything in it conjecture. Especially if you take into account apocryphical alternates with different details. For exemple, is Eve the first woman, or is it Lillith?

I doubt there will ever be any evidence that God wrote the Book of Genesis (or any other part of the Bible). That's because the belief that God was behind the Bible is a matter of faith, not science. Science deals in the realm of evidence, experimentation, theory, and sometimes proof. Faith deals in the realm of that which we accept without proof, especially that which cannot be proven or disproven.

My opinion is that the Book of Genesis was written by men of faith, not by men of science or history, and should be taken as such. There are messages in there that should not be ignored by believers in the faith. I don't consider the Genesis account of Creation to be a historical account, and I don't believe I'm calling God a liar by saying that, no more than I would be calling Jesus a liar by saying that the parables he used in his teaching were not true stories.

While I acknowledge that God is at the Heart of the Bible, I also keep in mind that it was originally written in a time when mankind didn't understand such things as Geological Age, Fossilisation, Genetics, or even modern biology.

I also keep in mind that our current, modern bible came into form in 300 AD, when the Council of Nicea met to essentially toss out what they didn't like.

As for the Book of Genesis.. One of the earliest Christians to propose that it wasn't intended to be taken litterally was Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430 C.E.). In his words: "If God spoke through some created stuff to say 'Let there be light', how can light be the first creature, since something had to be created through which he could say 'Let light be'? . . . Or was it from inchoate stuff that God formed physical sound by which he could pronounce 'Let light be'? But if that is the case, then there was already time as a vehicle for sound, with different moments for the syllables to succeed each other. And if time preceded the creation of light, in what time was the voice created that sounded the words 'Let light be'? To which day should we assign that time?" He then concluded "God did not intend to teach men about the inner structure of nature".

So, if God hasn't come out to tell us how the Universe works, it's up to us to figure it out for ourselves.

LoneWolf23k wrote:While I acknowledge that God is at the Heart of the Bible, I also keep in mind that it was originally written in a time when mankind didn't understand such things as Geological Age, Fossilisation, Genetics, or even modern biology.

I also keep in mind that our current, modern bible came into form in 300 AD, when the Council of Nicea met to essentially toss out what they didn't like.

As for the Book of Genesis.. One of the earliest Christians to propose that it wasn't intended to be taken litterally was Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430 C.E.). In his words: "If God spoke through some created stuff to say 'Let there be light', how can light be the first creature, since something had to be created through which he could say 'Let light be'? . . . Or was it from inchoate stuff that God formed physical sound by which he could pronounce 'Let light be'? But if that is the case, then there was already time as a vehicle for sound, with different moments for the syllables to succeed each other. And if time preceded the creation of light, in what time was the voice created that sounded the words 'Let light be'? To which day should we assign that time?" He then concluded "God did not intend to teach men about the inner structure of nature".

So, if God hasn't come out to tell us how the Universe works, it's up to us to figure it out for ourselves.

Bingo. The Bible has much in it that is allegorical, and the Genesis tales fall firmly into that category. I do not presume to understand why the allegories are not closer to what we now know to be the reality of Deep Time, but the fact remains that they are fables, not accurate representations of the how of Creation.

RH, I suspect that you've been lied to somewhere along the line, either deliberately or more likely through ignorance. The evidence for evolution is very solid, and spread over everything we know about biology and large chunks of the rest of the sciences. The problem is two-fold; one, some folks are uncomfortable about being just part of the whole of life and object to the Theory of Evolution for various reasons that do not apply to other scientific theories, and two, the science involved is not introductory-level material. People with an interest in misrepresenting it can come up with a dozen objections that sound plausible to the layman in as many minutes, but it might take as many days to explain to someone unfamiliar with the sciences exactly why these objections are actually nothing but garbage.

You say that theistic evolution makes God out to be a liar, but in fact literalism with respect to Genesis makes him out to be a worse one, deliberately loading the entirety of Creation with false clues as to its age and origin. I cannot imagine a benevolent Creator falsifying Creation and putting the truth only in a confusing series of ancient documents with no guide as to which ones are correct and which are simply fables. Not if it matters to one's salvation, at least.

Personally, I am confident that given enough time and enough honest scientists, we would find ourselves imevitably drawing closer to Creationism.
Evolution requires the instantaneous developement of life in an absolutely sterile environment. One moment, nothing but random chemicals, the next moment a living single-celled organism complete with its own complex and precise DNA record allowing it to reproduce, as well as protecting it from mutation.
Evolution also requires simple life forms to become complex life forms, and one species to arise from another. This runs counter to the existing evidence. There is no blurring of species lines, and even when two similar species are successfully interbred, the result is sterile.
Evolution also demands an unimaginably ancient planet Earth, while the planet upon which we live is still a thin crust of cooled rock around a molten core, with active volcanoes and moving tectonic plates.
The scientific community once taught a thing called Spontaneous Generation, in which flies appeared from rotting meat and frogs from swamp water. That was debunked by Louis Pasteur long ago, but still we have scientists stating the same lines of cause and effect - with the careful addition of billions of years for the process to occur - today.
Believe what you will. I won't try to change your opinions. I believe time will do that.

UncleMonty wrote:There is no blurring of species lines, and even when two similar species are successfully interbred, the result is sterile.

While I agree with the general gist of what you're saying ("Science is simply us trying to understand what God has already done"), I do have to break in on this point and say that the rate at which a species differentiates itself from a parent species (artic foxes vs fennecs, for example) very quickly - and the two species become unbreedable shortly after that. I can't remember the exact timelines that this occurs in, but I think that it's in the tens, and no more than the hundreds, of generationsfor this to occur - in fact, some species have seperated in the relatively short time since the scientific method came into practice (again, I can't remember the species or the source for that).
Just making a comment.
Magius out.

Evolutionists themselves have been <a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-332.htm">caught with their pants down,</a> admitting that evolution doesn't meet the criteria of science-- that it is, in fact, their dogmatically proselytized religion:

<I>"Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message."

"Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God."

"Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations."

<b>"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."</b>

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion