that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your résumé] simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist."

It is really striking how many articles we've seen of late about how those who challenge darwinism are answered simply with a "you're not a scientist" retort. And if they are a scientist, then it's "you're not a biologist". Dawkins refuses to debate Philip Johnson on that ground alone. The same treatment is meted out to anyone questionning global warming.

Years ago, Theodore Rozak attacked scientists and experts from the left in The Making of a Counterculture. If memory serves, his best line was when he called scientists: "those modest, diffident types who just happen to know the difference between what is real and what is not and alone possess the means of telling the difference."

Don't these guys realize that they have abandoned intellectual argument altogether and are just defending the perogatives of the priesthood?

Peter:

Every Gnosticism believes it alone has access to Truth and they all despise the universalists.

People are realizing that scientists are - first and foremost - just other people. Other people with biases, religions, political agendas, faiths, and beliefs, just like all other people.

The portraying of the superiority of scientists as special people with a special smartness, that prevents them from telling any lies, is crashing and burning. And, about time.

A realistic picture of "a scientist" is taking its place in the public consciousness.

Alright, once again OJ chooses to prefer the term "Darwinist" to "evolutionary biologist" or even just "biologist" because the fact of the matter, is that almost every biologists, geologist, chemist, physicist, anthropologist, believes in evolution.
There has been over 100 years of study since Darwin came out with "The Origin of Species." Basically, microevolution has been proven scientifically, in a number of ways; that means the evolution of populations has been observed, all over the place.
Macroevolution, the evolution of a new species, hasnt been directly observed, but we see examples for it all over the place, in the fossil record, in genetic structures, the support for it is literally mountains highs.
Intelligent design is not science; it doesnt take a scientist to say that that; it doesnt use theories, it is not testable, it is based on faith in something outside of human observation.
I think the biggest problem people have with evolution is the idea of randomness and intention; and the reluctance to give up on the literal interpretation of scripture, and maybe the hesistation to feel as if someone has wasted their whole life going to church. Religion and God doesnt go out the door with evolution; you can still believe in your imaginary friends (i still believe).

I also find it interesting that the only people who are really in dispute of evolution, and now trying to push this intelligent design hoax, are literalist Protestant Christians from America; Catholics accept evolution, Muslims accept evolution, most Jews do, Hindu's do, Buddhists do. If your beliefs are strong, than their shouldnt be anything science could say that would shake them.
Do you believe in the Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, Lot being turned into a pillar of salt, or any of the other myths from the old testament? When will you realize that these are fables, and learn the respect them as metaphors rather than as literal truth?

If you don't believe in the same scientific that method is involved in the theory of evolution, than there are a lot of other scientific theories that you might want to take a look at; evolution isn't the only idea that challenges the pseudoscience that is drawn from the old testament.
What have you to say about the development of man-like creatures from A. Africanus, to Homo Erectus, all the way to Homo Sapiens. Do you think that God was slowly, over millions of years, perfectly the physical form of man? Do you believe in the undisputable and observable changes in the human genome over thousands of years?
You guys are showing the same narrowmindedness that denounced Copernicus and Galileo; nowadays we laugh at the ignorance of those people.

PJ:

No they don't:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/024128.html

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/018045.html

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/US/724_public_view_of_creationism_and_11_19_2004.asp

Darwinism is a cult in America. We're required to respect the right of minorities to their odd views, so long as they aren't dangerous, but not to yield to them.

PJ:

They were wrong too. The Universe is not just geocentric but homocentric.

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/cat_geocentric_universe.html

"I think science works the way a tightrope walker works: by not looking at its feet. As soon as it looks at its feet, it realizes it is operating in midair."

- Annie Dillard

OJ, I don't what kind of foolish links you have there, but i won't even dignify you by visting them. Basically, you sound really ignorant when you throw around the word Darwinisn; i was a chemistry major in college at a large university, and your position is laughable to the scientific community. Go the biology, chemistry, geology, or anthrolopology departments of your local university, and see how many professors share your opinion. Take a look at the two most popular and respected scientific journals, Science and Nature, and see how many scientific arguements are constructed with biblical support or religious support.
Stick to pretending like you review books, you really dont know what you're talking about when you bring up these bs statistics about how much of the American public, or how many scholars believe in evolution. Don't let yourself be manipulated by Republican powermongers who want an easy way to mobilize the Christian vote on their behalf; they don't really believe in the sanctity of human life. But there are a lot of scientists who do.

PJ:

Do you find arguments for Christ's divinity in Muslim publications? Your argument that the cult closes its doors to argument is obviously true.

Despite that, only 13% of Americans, only 38% of doctors, and a bare majority of scientists buy Darwinism/Natural Evoilution/the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis/whatever-you-are-calling-it-these-days-to distance-it-from-past-failure...

It was a neat theory--it just isn't right.

ghostcat,
Dillard's quote nicely illustrates what science has done for us - raised us to great heights - and how it has done it - through risk taking.

It is really necessary that every three weeks we reset to square 1.

OJ:
I find it i little peculiar that you get almost all of your statistics from religious think tanks publications....I dunno, call me crazy, but they seem a little biased to me in a way.
Muslims do believe in Christ, but they believe he was onyl a predecessor to Mohammed. And their religion (well, for the most part) allows them to believe in scientific theories that might seem to challenge the literal interpretation of the book of genesis.
Before i argue any further, are you trying to dispute that the earth is a little more than 4 billion years old?
Evolution was a neat theory? Have you ever been to college? Recently? There are whole majors devoted to it.
Come up with a poll of university professors, thats done by a group that doesnt have a vested interest in producing a certain result, on their beliefs in evolution.

"I think science works the way a tightrope walker works: by not looking at its feet. As soon as it looks at its feet, it realizes it is operating in midair."

- Annie Dillard

Right on! Obviously, scientists are human and know the universe only from a human perspective. There may very well be natural truth not accessible by scientific method. How many scientists have lately admitted the limitations of their theories?

David,
I know, i know, i get sick of this argument too. Its little more fun than the typical ("Criticism is good for a democracy," says on, "No its not, its bad" says the next). There really isnt much to say except for OJ to pull out some bs statistics (need i quote Mark Twain?) and for someone else to point out mountains of evidence that OJ et al. won't look at. I guess he'd rather live in the past.
Is there anyone here who disputes that fact that scientists have observed microevolution, because if there is i think im going to to some research this weekend?

PJ:

I find it odd that you get all your Darwinism from Darwinists.

l:

Hasn't raised us--it's lowered us.

PJ:

Feel free to cite just one piece of evidence--there is none.

OJ
Believe or not, there are Christians who don't have the problem of reconciling their scientific beliefs with their religious beliefs.
I get my beliefs from the mainstream scientists. Ive probably had well over 2 dozen science teachers in my life (like i said, biologists, chemist, geologist, anthrolopologists, physicists, etc) and ive had a lesson from anyone who didnt believe in evolution.
So your comparison are like apples and oranges. There are plenty of religious types who have no problem with evolution; there are very few respectable scientist who deny evolution (unless they are being paid to do so). You should get out more.

PJ:

That's just conformity to social pressure--God and Darwinism can't be reconciled.

But I'm married to a Doctor and the Other Brother is a Biology PhD and neither is a Darwinist.

My goal in life is to get out less.

OJ
Ok, we've seen diseases evolving for decades. What happens is that there is randomness (yes randomness) in the genome of bacteria, which sometimes confers, upon an individual cell, the ability to be resistant to certain types of antibiotics that we use. Well, eventually, this single cell thrives and all other strains of that bacteria die off. A new type of bacteria evolves.
There is the example of moths in England in the industrial revolution that everyone is familar with in biology textbooks.
There are beneficial mutations in populations that we havent had enough time to go into effect; there are selecting factors in populations that we haven't had enough time to see go into effect.
There is sickle-cell anemia, which affects many Africans, which, although a disease, is advantageous because it confers immunity to malaria.
There is hundreds of millions of years of the fossil record, where you can see step by step changes in organisms over time.
Im guessing that you have less of a problem with evolution than you do with it being explained by natural selection?
Outside of the Bible, or a biased belief in religion, give me some support for "intelligent design" or "dressed up creationism." It is actually kind of a non-theory because it tries to ignore the connections in data rather than try to explain them.

OJ
Maybe your simplistic conception of god cant be;
Let me guess, you picture him as sort of an old man with a beard, and white robes, who lives in the clouds, right?
Do you realize that there are over 5 billion people on the planet, and most of them don't share your narrow-minded views?
When i say you should get out more, i dont mean like go to bars more, i just mean expose yourself to more viewpoints; like the mainstream viewpoints of science. Like i said, pick up a copy of Nature, or Science.

PJ:

Peppered moths are a notorious hoax--as anyone who reads Nature an d Science knows--their inclusion in textbooks was intended to get folks to believe a theory foer which there was no actual support.

Bacteria evolved into? Bacteria

What species do you think blacks are if not homo sapiens?

The fossiul record shows leaps, not gradualism.

No one questions evolution--Genesis, after all, gives an evolutionary account of Creation. The only question is what causes evolution: Nature, God, or some other intelligent beings?

PJ:

Three billion share them--the rest are in decline.

PJ,

The difference between the term "evolution" and "Darwinism" is the former merely implies that life forms have changed over time while the latter is intimately tied to materialist metaphysical dogma.

Peppered moths show how selecting factors can change over time.
Do you know the difference between micro and macro evolution? Or is it another one of those things that you denounce before you really learn about?
The record shows a combination of both; if you step back far enough, it is gradualism, from up close it looks like leaps; and this is wholey consistent with the nature of mutations, coevolution, geographic changes, and many other explanations that you have probably never heard of.
Ok, we're getting somewhere; i mean, you could say that god causes everything, or god causes nothing. I bet you would be inclined to say the former.
Besides the activities of humans, what causes species to go extinct?
Who are we to try to ascribe the motivation of god; of course you can point to everything "good" in the world, and say god did, but how do you rationalize the presence of "evil." The problem of trying to put god into arguments is that the arguements justify themselves as conclusions without having to resort to any kind of data. That is why theologist should leave the mechanisms of evolution to the biologists.
There are complex things in nature that develop without the presence of higher intellidence. Do you think that it is the intention of the tiny organisms that build coral reefs to make such wonderfully complex and elaborate structures? Howabout termite mounds?
Just because our chemical composition is more complex than our brains are able to understand, and because most of our early human history is hidden from us except for skeletons, there is hardly any reason to resort to supernatural explanations.

"Agree with me, you narrow-minded idiot, and abandon your simplistic conception of god! Right now, or I shall taunt you a second time!"

Good persuasive rhetoric there.

Mike - are you addressing me or OJ?
OJ- actually Islam is growing a lot faster; the state of Christianity in the US; a lot of old people still go to church....
Carl- i agree somewhat with your definitions, but still i cant see what the big problem with Natural Selection is. Granted, i don't believe it really operates in humans beings, anymore. But this is not the first time that science has challenged religious assumption; it is conceivable that both terms do, and also that both terms dont.
Not believing in evolution is almost as stupid as believing that our solar system is the center of the universe. (Wait, Dont tell, you believe that too....)

Oops, overestimated another one.

Peppered moths have been removed from the more recent textbooks because they turned out to be a hoax. If you read Science or Nature you might be aware of the problems. If you want to go ameliorate your ignorance we can resume the discussion. Until then, one of your co-religionists put it best at one of your holy days:

These are the two main forms of the peppered moth, emblems and textbook examples of evolution in action. The dark form appeared in Victorian Manchester, described at the time as "the chimney of the world", and had almost taken over from the speckled by the century's end. An entomologist named J.W. Tutt suggested that the dark ones were better concealed from birds in industrial districts, where pollution had stripped the lichen from the trees and covered them in soot. Half a century later, experiments by Bernard Kettlewell, of Oxford University, supported Tutt's hypothesis and made the peppered moths famous as a demonstration of evolution at a pace humans could observe. Then the dark forms duly went into decline along with smokestack industries and coal fires, making the textbook story complete. Yet in the past few years, Creationists and other anti-evolutionists have taken up the peppered moth as a stick with which to beat Darwinians. The LSE event was a rally in defence of the peppered moths' tarnished reputation.

And it was personal - relentlessly, vehemently, entirely personal. The speaker was Dr Michael Majerus, who leads the Evolutionary Genetics group at Cambridge University. Some years ago, he published a book in which he reviewed the studies done on the peppered moths. There were some anomalies, such as the appearance of dark moths in unpolluted areas, and it remained infernally difficult to do experiments which did not distort the untidy reality of life in the wild. These difficulties did not, however, shake his confidence in the story that Tutt had started a century before. But reviewing the book in the journal Nature, Jerry Coyne, an American evolutionist, compared his reaction to Majerus's discussion with the dismay he had felt when he discovered the truth about Santa Claus. He considered that the moth should be discarded as "a well-understood example of natural selection in action". [...]

Given a platform, Majerus took his revenge. For an hour he refuted, denounced and mocked. He closed with an impassioned invocation of over forty years' experience, man and boy: "I have caught literally millions of moths in moth traps. And I have found in the wild more peppered moths than any other person alive or dead. I know I'm right, I know Kettlewell was right, I know Tutt was right."

But, he acknowledged, anyone else needs scientific proof.

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/011708.html

There are two sides in the Darwin fight: the Darwinists, who believe on faith alone, and those who would require scientific proof.

PJ:

Yes, I include Muslims in our 3 billion.

OJ,
I know I'm being a stickler on this develop your point thing, but since it doesn't seems as obvious as the contrary, can you explain how science has "lowered" us?

l:

Sure, believers think Man merely a part of a material world. it has literally lowered us.

Ok, you're right about the peppered moths. I sort of half knew it when i posted it, but i thought i could get you on it anyway.
But that bit at the end about requiring proof? If you really required proof you wouldn't believe in god. The whole concept is anti-proof.
I really like how you pick out one point and ignore all others. Its very consistent with the rest of your operations, where you pretty much ignore the mountains and cling to the small amount that confirms your bias.
Im surprised you didnt notice more articles on evolution in those two journals i mentioned. Again, picking out that which confirms your belief, and ignoring that which disproves it.
I guess this is a fruitless argument, but still, im going to find some stuff this weekend to post. Until then, promise me that you will do the same, and not just research the usual suspects of Christian political antiscience that is a thinly-veiled cover for conservative groups trying rally the support of idiots like yourself around the country.

pj.

Major difference here. Muslims believe that Christ, like Mohammed, was a prophet. They don't believe that Christ is an equal in the Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

I don't know which brother is the theoretical physicist, but I do know that if he's anything like my son who's also in that line, he'd be amused at the notion that people in the biology, chemistry, geology, or anthropology departments are scientists.

He calls them all mechanics, and unfortunately the formerly respected scientific journals you mention have been totally co-opted by political correctness and no longer have any credibility.

PJ:

Bingo! We require proof of science, not of faith. As your point makes clear, Darwinism is a faith, not a science.

You're making rapid progress.

PJ,

I don't believe that the earth is the center of the universe but I don't have any problem with people that believe the purpose of the universe is man. My own opinion is that the universe was created (initially anyway) to amuse God. I see no reason to believe that God doesn't do whatever it is He does in the temporal realm in accordance with physical laws. A game is pointless and no fun if you break the rules.

I think that God created man and evolution was His instrument. Of course that means that evolution was not random or purposeless and hence not Darwinian.

So, let me get this straight:

Darwinian Biology is unquestionable because whole groups of people (a segment of university staff and faculty) believe in it?

Christianity is questionable because whole groups of people believe in it?

Hm. Something isn't fair here.

The funny thing is that Christianity, a faith with no inherent scientific requirements, presents more scientific evidence (proofs) for its existence than does Darwinian theory, an alleged science with obvious inherent scientific requirements.

Let's see here:

Assertion - A man named Jesus lived in the real town of Nazareth approximately 2000 years ago.

Tests - Numerous independent historical documents, including ones hostile to the message and ministry of Jesus, hold a variety of coherent accounts of Jesus of Nazareth. Modern science of archaeology lends further evidence of accurate descriptions of landmarks and customs of the day as described by and about Jesus.

Conclusion - Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, who lived on this planet approximately 2000 years ago, in Israel.

There are scores of these relating to Jesus.

Now to Darwinian Biology:

Assertion: Over time, man evolved from a proto-source.

Tests: Recreation of the substance of so-called proto-source in a laboratory setting. Unsuccessful. Observed transformation of species to transitional species. Unsuccessful. Accelerated mutation/transition through hybriding and genetic experimentation. Unsuccessful.

Conclusion: There is no scientific reason to believe in the philosophical presupposition that man descended from magic goo and/or monkey loins. Even if a professor in a chemistry class makes a religious claim otherwise.

Visitor, the crux of Christianity is not that Jesus lived, but that he was resurrected. What does science tell us about that?

That He had to have been God.

Same thing. Same historic evidence. Same testimonies. Sources hostile to the notion of the resurrection nevertheless testify to its truth.

The same contemporary reliable sources (and I'm not speaking of the biblical record, here, but of non-religious and hostile religious histories and legal documents) that testify to the existence of Jesus also testify to his resurrection.

It defies scientific reason to accept their attestations to his ministry (which all historians do) and reject, a priori, their attestations to his resurrection.

Discount the latter and you reject the former.

Nevertheless, this is a side issue. The point is that Christianity makes testable claims: that Jesus, precisely fulfilling ancient prophesy, lived, lay down his life, and was raised again.

To be certain, there are counterclaims to this assertion (i.e. that he 1) did not exist or 2) if he did did not die as described in the texts or 3) if he did die he did not rise from the dead) but these likewise are testable.

The Darwinian claims are testable too, but when they fail the test, it is, all too commonly, the test that is rejected, not the claim. This is unreasonable and unscientific.

Wow, Visitor, what a mess. You should definitely read up not just on the theory of evolution ("What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr is a good starting point), but maybe also on Christianity. As Robert pointed out, the crux of it is hardly that a man named Jesus existed.

Science tells us absolutely nothing about whether Jesus was resurrected - nor does it need to. The comparison is absurd. Jesus's resurrection is a matter of faith and as such not open to scientific exploration (except perhaps out of historical interest), while evolution is a matter of science, and open to exploration.

Orrin, how does science tell us that Jesus had to have been God?

I'm sorry, but Evolutionary Theory is a science, not a popularity contest. If the belief that aliens are mutilating cattle is on the rise, does that make it more likely to be scientifically true?

But the fact remains that the hoary notion that evolutionary theory is not to be questioned, is to be accepted as fact, is fading. It is interesting that you bring up Mayr...I've actually read him extensively, and his oft-contradictory admissions support my argument, they don't refute it.

Mayr admits that evolutionary biology is a philosophy first, based on presuppositions, not laws. In fact, he underscores the fact that the biological sciences, as he describes them, have no laws, and so a philosophical faith is, by definition, necessary.

This is not scientific. It is philosophical. I have no problem debating the philosophical strengths and weaknesses of evolution, but only if you agree with Mayr first that evolutionary theory is first and foremost a philosophy/history of science...not science itself.

Visitor,

What contemporary non-biblical record showed Jesus was resurrected?

Which claims of the theory of evolution have failed when tested?

How does science view eyewitness accounts not committed to paper until decades after the event they describe?

creeper:

Because resurrection isn't possible scientifically.

OJ, how does science tell us that Jesus was resurrected?

The unmarked post above was mine. My apologies for that.

One other thing: you are missing the point if you think that a simple statement regarding the existence of Jesus is a complete theological defense for his claims.

Please, if I'm so misinformed on evolution, please present a simple, testable FACT of the theory. This is the FOUNDATION of science: a simple, testable assertion, tested, tested again...and then tested ad infinitum for good measure.

One fact. Make one claim. The fact that Jesus existed, and its subsequent "proofs" is such a claim. The fact that man emerged from a proto-source at random, is another such claim.

The difference is in the results. One stands up under scrutiny. The other does not.

I challenge you to make one, single testable claim regarding evolutionary "science" that supports its tenets.

For example physical science claims that an object will fall to earth, due to the law of gravity. If I pick up a can of soda and release it, it will drop to the floor, every time. There you go, a very complex concept broken down to a simple component, and easily testable.

Biological science claims that, under controlled conditions, a tomato seed, properly planted and cultivated will grow into a plant that will NEVER produce bananas. Simple component, easily testable.

Where is the gravitational test for evolution? Where is the bio-experiment for it? Where is the proof? Please show me the money.

Anonymous,

No dice. The only quotes of Mayr's that supposedly say that biology is a philosophy and not a science appear based on the misunderstanding that "philosophy of biology", which Mayr uses in the same context as "philosophy of science", actually classifies biology as a philosophy, when it does nothing of the sort, in the same way that "philosophy of science" does not classify science as a philosophy (both have underlying theories/philosophies, but the two are not synonymous); and misreading "not a science like the other sciences" as meaning "not a science at all" instead of "a different science from the other sciences".

"Because resurrection isn't possible scientifically."

That wouldn't lead science to jump to the conclusion that it was God. Science only deals with the natural, not the supernatural.

Robert:

Science doesn't.

I can see that there are some gross misunderstandings of ancient biblical and extrabiblical documentary history here, and have no idea where the notion of "decades" after the fact documentation comes up, unless one is referring to existing copies of evidentiary source copies, which are no less authentic in content than if I owned an authentic Xerox of the existing U.S. Constitution, 200+ years after its original drafting, and the original was then somehow lost.

Clearly you may wish to stick to evolutionary debate, because you present ample evidence that you haven't actually studied ancient history, nor are prepared to honestly or openly debate its claims.

Speaking of which, the burden of proof is on you, not me: make a testable evolutionary claim.

I can't make one because I know of no such thing. It doesn't exist. Even Mayr argues that the reason there are no "proofs" for the theory is because the evolutionists have spent so much time trying to discredit its critics.

I say the critics will fall silent as soon as the evolutionists can present one...simple...testable...claim. And then test it enough, and get the same results often enough that they actually begin to establish their mythical mountain of evidence.

One claim.

Make it or don't...but the burden is on you.

creeper:

Voodoo is likewise "not a science like the other sciences"

I guess PJ is not pj, unless pj, who hasn't been around much lately, had a brain transplant. Right?

Peter, Johnson isn't any kind of scientist, so if the debate is as between scientists, why would Dawkins debate him?

Professor PZ Myers, who runs the excellent pharyngula.org blog, takes the strong position that a debate can only take place between people of equal technical background -- that is, postdocs in biology.

I do not go so far, but it certainly cannot take place with people who misrepresent basic tenets of the orthodox position, as orrin does, with, eg, moths.

I have had negative things to say about Christianity, but I don't have to misrepresent its practices and preachings to do so.

It is telling that Orrin and his allies have to misrepresent biology. (I'd say Orrin misrepresents pretty much all of Christianity, too, but that's another topic.)

A "different science" that can't conjure up something as simple as a testable claim is not a science at all. It is a belief.

We are dealing with belief here. You believe evolution is right and present no evidence and make no claims. I believe evolution is wrong and see no claim that is even trying to persuade me otherwise.

One of us is incorrect. The burden of proof is on you, the claimant.

This shouldn't be very difficult. If, for example, I didn't believe in gravity, you should be able to make some relatively simple claims and tests to demonstrate otherwise. If I didn't believe in DNA you should be able to do likewise.

By Mayr's standards, I can call UFOlogy a "different science" or psychic readings a "different science" or Atlantean myths a "different science."

But it doesn't make them science.

Again, make a testable claim, and I'll grant you your coveted "science" title.

Until then, its faith and faith alone, and God bless you for it.

Harry:

Even you don't claim Dawkins is a scientist, do you?

Pretty funny though that you guys only allow for other cultists to debate you--it does have the advantage of keeping your circle closed.

For centuries, and even today, alchemists made claims of unprovable negatives. Many respected university graduates practiced alchemy. People made whole careers in the alchemical arts.

Alchemy makes no testable claim.

Is it, too a "different science?" It at one time had all the same social supports as evolutionary theory...but the proof of the pudding was in the eating and eventually alchemical arts were swallowed whole by testable science.

Alchemy's fantastic claims, in fact, are undermined by hard science, and relegated to the diviner's tents.

I've heard no arguments on this board in favor of the theory of evolution that could not just as easily be applied to alchemy, which indicates to me that skeptical inquirerers are not truly welcome in the discussion. Again, this is the realm of faith.

One other thing: you are missing the point if you think that a simple statement regarding the existence of Jesus is a complete theological defense for his claims.

No, you made that claim when you said there was scientific proof to back Christianity and pointed to the evidence showing Jesus actually existed. His existence proves nothing about Christianity, only his resurrection does. No resurrection, no Christ. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

I hope you aren't parroting Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". I've never read a greater collection of fallacious reasoning - until I started reading BrosJudd blog, that is.

Allow me to recap the so-called debate:

Evolutionists claims hinge on the stupidity of its opponents, not on inherent truths it advances, tests and verifies.

Skeptics examining the faith claims of evolutionists are discredited not because of the scientific arguments to which they ascribe but to their obvious obtuseness in openly examining evolutionary thought.

The evolutionists claim to welcome open debate, but when it comes, it is discredited because the skeptics don't exhibit the proper scientific credentials (i.e. are not themeselves evolutionists.)

All this stemming from a credentialed scientist who made the heretical mistake of not censoring a document of scientific inquiry that happened to challenge, on scientific grounds, existing evolutionary science.

Maybe I should advance a new evolvo-creationist theory: that those who believe by faith that they descended from apes probably did.

Here, for those who aparrantly haven't evolved to the point of acquiring the art of reasoned debate, for the final time is my repeated challenge:

Make one, testable claim. Stop playing word games with non-germane issues and make a claim or go home, because this list is reading more and more like an "Evolution vs. Open Scientific Inquiry" debate, and if you truly aspire to scientific ideals instead of Evolutionary religious dogma, you may want to take a moment right now, and consider switching sides.

One claim.

Any takers?

Here, for those who apparently haven't evolved to the point of acquiring the art of reasoned debate, for the final time, is my repeated challenge:

Make one, testable claim.

Stop playing word games with non-germane issues and make a claim or go home, because this list is reading more and more like an "Evolution vs. Open Scientific Inquiry" debate, and if you truly aspire to scientific ideals instead of Evolutionary religious dogma, you may want to take a moment right now, and consider switching sides.

One claim.

Any takers?

Here, for those who apparently haven't evolved to the point of acquiring the art of reasoned debate, for the final time, is my repeated challenge:

Make one, testable claim.

Stop playing word games with non-germane issues and make a claim or go home, because this list is reading more and more like an "Evolution vs. Open Scientific Inquiry" debate, and if you truly aspire to scientific ideals instead of Evolutionary religious dogma, you may want to take a moment right now, and consider switching sides.

One claim.

Any takers?

Ha! My apologies for my evolving posts! Of course, that just happened by random chance, with no external input whatsoever!

Seriously, though, sorry about that.

Calm down, Visitor.

By "decades after the events" I was talking about the dates of the compositions of the Gospels. None were composed before 30 years after the events in question.

I grant you that there were contemporary accounts testifying to Jesus's existence, and I consider that non-controversial and unremarkable. None refer to the miracles, nor the resurrection.

I may be wrong on that, so feel free to clue me in: What contemporary non-biblical record showed Jesus was resurrected?

Testable claims of evolutionary biology? There's hardly a scarcity of them, and they are tested all the time as new information comes in. You can find a bunch of them here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

"this list is reading more and more like an "Evolution vs. Open Scientific Inquiry" debate"

That's a good one - you haven't been around this blog long, have you?

Visitor;

As you can see, they won't offer any.

Orrin,

I linked to quite a few.

Still looking for some answers from Visitor, by the way:

What contemporary non-biblical record showed Jesus was resurrected?

Which claims of the theory of evolution have failed when tested?

How does science view eyewitness accounts not committed to paper until decades after the event they describe?

Again Creeper, you simply don't know your history. The biblical accounts themselves contain internal datings, the earliest beginning approximately 2 or 3 years after the appearance of Christ to Saul, a persecutor (not unlike yourself) of Christians.

Please stick to evolution and dodging the simple challenge: don't direct me to talkorigins, there are no testable claims there. I've looked, honestly and openly.

You aren't even very good at the ad hominem attack, so I don't understand why you persist trotting out that one-trick pony.

You clearly have no respect for the scientific method, no scientific argument to make, but are cloaking yourself in evolutionary dogma to take shots at a religion that has nothing to do with your pseudoscientific cultism.

You can't make a claim, because you don't have one.

Either advance one scientific claim, or accept your defeat, or don't. Your irrational, anti-intellectual nonsense doesn't change the scoreboard. It makes no difference to me. Everyone here knows who is making the more reasoned, valid and truth-seeking claim, and who is clinging to religious dogma, swaddled in the transparent cloak of "philosophical scientism."

Thank you. Come again!

Not one.

Offer one.

Visitor,

"don't direct me to talkorigins, there are no testable claims there. I've looked, honestly and openly."

Somehow I doubt that, because it really isn't that hard. Okay, here's one:

Future findings in the fossil record will reflect a strong positive correlation between stratigraphy and the consensus phylogeny of the major taxa.

For example, we should never find mammalian or avian fossils in or before Devonian deposits, before reptiles had diverged from the amphibian tetrapod line. This excludes Precambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, and Silurian deposits, encompassing 92% of the earth's geological history and 65% of the biological history of multicellular organisms.

creeper:

There are tons of apocrypha and Gnostic Gospels and what not that aren't biblical that discuss the Resurrection:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/New-Testament-apocrypha

Likewise Josephus:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm

I wonder if the evolutionists, who seem so concerned with popular opinion (instead of established fact) are aware of the number of rational human beings who absolutely guffaw behind their backs.

I mean, really. The notion would seem preposterous if it had some verifiable truth behind it, but as it stands right now, is about as valid as a promissory note signed by Jefferson Davis. I feel bad for the honest scientists who have gone into the field, discovered the Emperor's nudity, but are now trapped in an non-productive, mythmaking university-level industry with no chance of true scientific contribution.

Amidst the comedy at evolution-worshippers expense, we should never lose sight of the tragedy of evolution, and the toll its misappropriated belief has taken on the world at large and is taking on its current adherents.

I remember, as a budding evolutionist, how cheated I felt when I could find no scientific basis for the philosophical theories promoted at museums of natural history and even from some of my own professors. When I couldn't find a formula, a testable assertion, in fact anything but a philosophically storylined collection of so-called "evidence", I was devastated.

I can't imagine my life if I'd had the misfortune of pursuing a career in the field. I'd be trapped right now. And that is too bad, because scientific inquiry should encourage admitted failure: it is not just okay for a theory to be wrong...it is imperative! Unfortunately (with many exceptions) the scientific community tends only to smile on success, and entire fields that turn out to have bogus results are death for a practitioner.

This should not be the case. Science should expect and encourage whole courses of inquiry to "die" without repurcussion for the inquisitor. Death of bad ideas is good for science, and those who explored them, devoted their lives to them, and exposed them as worthy of death such should be rewarded, not punished.

I sympathize with those in the cult of evolutionary belief. It is incredibly difficult to break free from it under one's own power, and in doing so (as I once did) one is at risk to fall into another pit unknowingly (also as I once did). So please don't think you don't have my understanding if you are trapped in the logic bubble that is the evolutionary belief system.

Because you do.

"Again Creeper, you simply don't know your history. The biblical accounts themselves contain internal datings, the earliest beginning approximately 2 or 3 years after the appearance of Christ to Saul, a persecutor (not unlike yourself) of Christians."

The biblical accounts may well contain those datings, but the references to miracles and the resurrection are, AFAIK, in accounts from decades after the events. Feel free to enlighten me in that regard.

Which contemporaneous non-biblical record showed Jesus was resurrected?

(Orrin, thank you for that link - very interesting. The references to the resurrection in the Gospels of Peter and of Nicodemus however are not contemporaneous, and I am not sure about Bartholomew.)

I just had a look at my comments in this thread and can't find any place where I attacked Christianity or, Heavens forfend, persecuted Christians. Unless perhaps you are so thin-skinned that you think me asking you questions about your claims is some kind of attack.

"Thank you. Come again!"

I will.

Thank you Creeper, for making an attempt at an assertion. This prediction, however, no more supports the theory of evolution than me claiming that future discoveries of archaeological materials will reflect the historical record.

It is obvious that fossils tend to appear in an orderly fashion. But this in no way supports evolutionary theory. In fact, it works against it. Furthermore, there is a secondary supposition in that assertion, which is to say that the era of strata is pre-determined based on what is found there.

You are doing good though. For better testability, try to simplify your assertion. Kudos for trying. You are definitely on the right track, so I appreciate that.

Orrin,

Flavius Josephus was not even born until after the events in question - not a contemporaneous account.

"This prediction, however, no more supports the theory of evolution than me claiming that future discoveries of archaeological materials will reflect the historical record."

If you want to equate the phylogeny of the major taxa with a historical record, you're practically an evolutionist.

"It is obvious that fossils tend to appear in an orderly fashion. But this in no way supports evolutionary theory. In fact, it works against it."

How does it work against it?

"Furthermore, there is a secondary supposition in that assertion, which is to say that the era of strata is pre-determined based on what is found there."

No, the era is also determined by other methods of dating.

Orrin,

We shall see how Vetustodermis planus pans out. As the article points out, there are some tentative suggestions as to how it may be related to annelids or arthropods.

As for Coelocanth, a creature that has already been classified managing to survive in some pockets is hardly a major adjustment to the phylogenetic tree. It certainly doesn't falsify the claim above.

creeper:

He offers a contemporaneous account, though he was not a witness.

Orrin,

It seems to me that Josephus recorded the orally received history of the time, which is interesting, but I don't see how this makes it a contemporaneous account.

For what you are saying to be true ("He offers a contemporaneous account, though he was not a witness."), Josephus would have had to be alive at the time of, say, the resurrection, not witnessed it, but have had someone else tell him, and then contemporaneously committed the account to writing.

Instead, this is a third-hand (at least!) account not committed to writing until approx. 50 years after the events.

creeper:

Yes, Christ's contemporaries would have survived and the tale would have been known and Jospehus hearing it would have included it in his account of the times. A third hand account is no less contemporary.

Just a quick intrusion, for those interested in the historical record re: the resurrection. I have found N.T. Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God to be the best one volume treatment of this and related questions (such as, what would resurrection have meant to those who heard such claims in first century Palestine-- a spirtual or psychologicl phenomenon, a true resurrection of the body, etc.)

Wright makes clear that the record, while more voluminous in number of independent sources and closer in time than any other historical event in antiquity, does not prove that there was a resurrection. However, the evidence is compelling that a very early point, the evidence is strong that the earliest writers certainly believed and acted as if an event that was extremely unusual had happened, and that if they made up the story, they did so in a way that could not have been designed to be LESS credible in the Greco-Roman-Judaic culture of the time (using women as witnesses, etc.)

Wright is a recently installed Anglican Bishop who has a distinguished academic record. Anyone interested in a work that seriously engages claims made by skeptics (such as Jesus Seminar types like Crossan, Funk, etc.) in a way that is scholarly and free of name calling would profit from the work cited, as well as the two volumes that precede it in this planned multi (now to be six, I think)series, The New Testament and The People of God and Jesus and The Victory of God.

O.J., whether the Resurrection proves Jesus' divinity might seem obvious to us Christians, but an Orthodox Rabbi and Israeli historian named Pinchas Lapide wrote a book 20 years or so ago, "Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective" that says the evidence for the Resurrection is compelling, but does not prove that Jesus was the Messiah or divine. It is unforunately out of print. Wright dismisses Lapide's work in one short footnote, but in my opinion, should not have. But, again, the historical record is very strong that within a very short time from His death, Jesus was worshipped as Son of God and Lord by all of his earliest followers that can be identified, which is remarkable since so many of them were so strongly monotheistic, and claimed vehemently not to ahve abandoned monotheism. On this, there has been an excellent work by Larry Hurtado, who teaches at the University of Edinburgh, titled "Lord, Jesus Christ."

There has been some excellent work done in the last decade or so on the very earliest followers of Jesus, and some (both skeptical and fundamentalist) that is not so good. Only the latter seems to be cited in internet debates.

creeper:

Flavius Josephus was not even born until after the events in question...

Coming from a darwinist, that is very funny.

Peter,

I guess you weren't following the discussion. I had asked specifically if there were contemporaneous accounts of the resurrection, and Josephus was presented as a response. Hence my reply.

As Peter points out, there are no contemporaneous accounts of Darwinism, while Josephus presents a contemporaneous account of the Resurrection. Though, in fairness, it may have been added later by a Christian editor.

Don't they consider Huxley to be a 'fair' contemporaneous account?

Since a large part of evolutionary biology concerns itself with pre-historic time and geological time scales, by definition we can not look to contemporaneous written accounts to support it.

The only reason the subject of contemporaneous accounts came up was because Visitor made the claim that the facts of Jesus's life and resurrection could be proven and tested scientifically. I had asked how reliable eyewitness testimony that had not been written down until decades after the fact could be considered to be, and Visitor made the claim that there were accounts much closer in time to the events than that. So far, none such have been presented, however.

Not that it matters to me all that much. I don't think the resurrection of Christ needs to be proven scientifically. It is a matter of faith, and that is fine.

On the other hand, there is considerably more evidence to support the theory of evolution than Visitor presented at August 19, 2005 03:18 PM or in any of his other comments above. To look at the talkorigins link and claim to have read it "openly and honestly" without being able to find any testable claims shows nothing more than his lack of sincerity.

creeper;

We still eagerly await your one example, though no one is much bothered that your faith in Darwinism is unshaken by the lack of contemporaneous accounts. Your comparison of the two faiths is quite on point.

Wright makes clear that the record, while more voluminous in number of independent sources and closer in time than any other historical event in antiquity, does not prove that there was a resurrection. However, the evidence is compelling that a very early point, the evidence is strong that the earliest writers certainly believed and acted as if an event that was extremely unusual had happened, and that if they made up the story, they did so in a way that could not have been designed to be LESS credible in the Greco-Roman-Judaic culture of the time (using women as witnesses, etc.)

For my part, I'm willing to cede contemporaneous accounts - not from a position of authority on the subject, but from a position that it proves very little. If contemporaneous accounts of supernatural events are to be given authoritative value, then we should all be Mormons. Few of you non-Mormons out there seem to care that the visitations of the angel Moroni and the uncovering of the golden plates were witnessed and documented by Smith and other contemporaries less than 200 years ago.

Or you would also be forced to accept that aliens have been abducting your own contemporaries, as Harvard psychologist John Mack who has examined over 70 of them has.

If claims of unusual and/or supernatural experiences were rare or nonexistent in human history, then I guess the resurrection accounts would merit more credibility. As it is, they happen all the time, even today. You all have no problems filtering out the vast majority of them from serious consideration, but somehow feel that those of a particular Jewish sect ot two millenia ago should trump any rational skepticism that you all posess and employ for every other set of claims not related to your own sect.

Robert:

Rational skepticism, of course, demonstrates that reason itself is irrational. Extreme rationalists are just another sect and the most laughable one.

Yet you still attempt to ground your faith in reason. Fascinating!

Robert:

No. reason is just a tool of faith.

Orrin,

"We still eagerly await your one example,"

No need to wait, you can find it upthread, as well as a link to many more.

"though no one is much bothered that your faith in Darwinism is unshaken by the lack of contemporaneous accounts."

Why should acceptance of the theory of evolution be impacted in any way whatsoever by the lack of contemporaneous accounts for events in pre-historic times? Now you're just being silly.

"Your comparison of the two faiths is quite on point."

It was Visitor who chose to compare and misrepresent the scientific basis of Christianity (actually, just the existence of a person called Jesus) and the theory of evolution. I've made it clear I consider the comparison fruitless and unnecessary. If you happen to think it's on point, you can thank him (or her).

"Rational skepticism, of course, demonstrates that reason itself is irrational."

How so?

creeper:

tick tock

Robert:

If claims of unusual and/or supernatural experiences were rare or nonexistent in human history, then I guess the resurrection accounts would merit more credibility. As it is, they happen all the time, even today. You all have no problems filtering out the vast majority of them from serious consideration, but somehow feel that those of a particular Jewish sect ot two millenia ago should trump any rational skepticism that you all posess and employ for every other set of claims not related to your own sect.

So, what you are saying is that a good secular rationalist will "filter out" all claims of supernatural and unusual experiences on principle, and will, in fact, reject them more confidently the more of them that are made? You are a fervant believer, aren't you?

tick tock what?

Peter:

No, a rationalist just declares that what he believes isn't supernatural.

creeper:

Can't come up with even one testable claim of Darwinism in action?

Once again:

Future findings in the fossil record will reflect a strong positive correlation between stratigraphy and the consensus phylogeny of the major taxa.

- as well as a number of other ones you can find at the link I posted.

The existence of Vetustodermis planus does not falsify the statement; one of the reasons Vetustodermis planus is controversial is because it is close to annelids and arthropods, which have similar characteristics but have arrived there from different ancestors. Vetustodermis planus fits into the era, but as of yet there is no consensus on which branch of the phylogenetic tree, specifically, Vetustodermis planus belongs.

Coelocanth does not falsify it, since it fits very easily into the phylogenetic tree. The predecessor of Coelocanth today is, quite simply, Coelocanth. No controversy there. If it had shown up 65 million years before its first appearance in the phylogenetic tree, then yes, that would falsify the statement.

You're welcome to think of ways to falsify the prediction. Tick tock.

creeper:

That's mere evolution, not Darwinism. Moreover, the lack of contemporaneity is, as you suggest elsewhere, sufficient to make it non-scientific.

We eagerly await your single example, though even Dr, Mayr denies that there are any.

So, what you are saying is that a good secular rationalist will "filter out" all claims of supernatural and unusual experiences on principle, and will, in fact, reject them more confidently the more of them that are made? You are a fervant believer, aren't you?

Peter, think of it this way. Suppose you had a friend who never complains of health problems, but one day tells you that he is having chest pains. And suppose you have another friend who every day gives you a different account of some malady. One day he thinks he has cancer. The next day he's convinced he contracted AIDS from a toilet seat. On and on. Today, he tells you he's having chest pains.

Which of your friends would you drop everything for to drive him into the emergency room?

"That's mere evolution, not Darwinism."

In this instance, are you taking Darwinism to be synonymous with the theory of natural selection? Or something else? Because I thought we were talking about the theory of evolution.

Can I take it that you accept this testable claim as valid?

"Moreover, the lack of contemporaneity is, as you suggest elsewhere, sufficient to make it non-scientific."

Nonsense. I didn't suggest this, and it would not be sufficient to make it non-scientific. We are talking about pre-historic events, ie. events that took place before recorded human history. It would not be scientific in the least (to put it mildly) to insist that pre-historic events be validated by written records.

You can see in the exchange between me and Visitor how the issue of contemporaneity came up. He claimed that there was scientific evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. I asked how science viewed eyewitness accounts that were not recorded until decades after the fact, and he claimed there were more contemporaneous records - but so far, nobody has been able to dig up any such records.

As I pointed out previously, I don't think the resurrection requires scientific evidence; it is a matter of faith, and I don't have a problem with that.

creeper:

No one questions evolution. Your example is likewise "proof" of Lamarckianism, ID, Creationism, alien engineeing, etc.

Very good, so we're agreed that it is not science but faith when one holds certain beliefs about matters for which there is no contemporaneous historical record. Thus Darwinism.

Robert:

Both.

So you are a Mormon?

Robert:

I'm not, but I don't see any scientific/rational difference between Mormonism and Darwinism.

" Your example is likewise "proof" of Lamarckianism, ID, Creationism, alien engineeing, etc."

It contradicts Creationism ("belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible"). You want to have Genesis as a metaphor, you're welcome to it. Man made from dust in a day? Nuh-uh.

Lamarckianism has been proven wrong in other ways (those poor mice), so it is hardly relevant that one aspect of the theory of evolution happens to also be compatible with it.

Any prediction at all is of course compatible with ID (which includes alien engineers), since an incomprehensible all-powerful entity (supernatural or otherwise) can fit into any scenario you could ever name.

"Very good, so we're agreed that it is not science but faith when one holds certain beliefs about matters for which there is no contemporaneous historical record. Thus Darwinism."

The theory of evolution relies (in part) on a rather extensive contemporaneous record - fossils.

Regardless, the comparison Visitor made was ridiculous (not to mention utterly misrepresentative in both cases).

Well, you've totally mucked up the metaphor, but it was aimed at Peter's reply to my argument, so I'll wait until he replies. I know how you don't bother with such trifles as reality, reason or science.

I should modify my question to Peter by saying that you can't take both friends to the emergency room, you have to triage them and take the one whose claim of chest pains you give the most credulity to. The point I'm trying to make is that the fact that people in all cultures and all historical eras, including today, make claims to supernatural or wildly improbable (technically alien abductions aren't supernatural) experiences makes the truthfulness of any one claim less credible, unless you are willing to believe that they can all be true simultaneously.

Robert:

I certainly agree that I would tend to the incredulous if the same guy kept on claiming all sorts of different people had ressurected. If, however, millions, including many smarter and steadier than me, claimed just one did, I think I might inquire further.

Peter,
The hypochondriac guy represents humanity. Christianity is just one of his imagined maladies. While it is true that even hypochondriacs get sick, you'd be hard pressed to say that his cancer claim is any more believable than his AIDS claim - without some independent evidence, like a medical exam.

robert:

The point wasn't that you'd let a friend die because he was annoying? I thought it was a Darwinism thing.

creeper;

Not the first day. But, man was made on one day.

yes, it's entirely relevant that the only thing you cite supports all the evolutions generally and not yours in particular. You've gotten down to truth when you recognize that ID, Creationism and Darwinism will all necessarily fit whatever evidence you choose.

"If, however, millions, including many smarter and steadier than me, claimed just one did, I think I might inquire further."

... to find that the claims of those millions are ultimately based on events witnessed by very few, and subsequently transmitted orally for a whole generation before being written down?

You know how stories get enlarged in the telling, Chinese whispers and all. Nothing wrong with it, but I don't see why some religious types around here are so desperate to demonstrate a scientific grounding for their faith; it really isn't necessary.

creeper:

there you're right. Since science is grounded in faith it's pointlewss to try and ground faith in science.

No creeper, no religious person here is trying to demonstrate a scientific grounding for faith for the simple and well-understood reason that such is not possible. It's the non-religious here who keep thinking they are saying something profound by pointing that out over and over.

Peter, Visitor from Another Planet got that ball rolling.

OJ, I guess you could make an argument that being annoying would be a trait to be selected against in a Darwinian process, but the healthy representation of annoying people in the population sadly argues against it. Call it the Law of Squeaky Wheels.

In a just universe, Adam Sandler would not have a show business career.

Yes, Darwinian justice is always about killing others.

Letting things die isn't the same as killing them.

Michael:

Only legally and not always then. It's the same morally.

To be clear: my point is that the Christian faith makes, and stands by, numerous testable claims (Did Christ live? Did he say what the bible claims he said? If so, was he mad or correct? Did he die? Did he rise? Does he live? Is he the Son of God?), which is odd for a faith that, supposedly according to its non-adherents, is an unprovable, non-historical "feeling" or "wish."

Yet, when it comes to the articles of Darwinian faith, a Darwinist makes no coherent, testable claim, or if a claim is testable, it in no way supports the "big" argument for Darwinism.

This happens time and time again...I guess my point is that Darwinists are in need of love, patience, and understanding as they are lost and cloaked in darkness, puffed up by pseudoscientism, impervious to open critiques and in desperate need of love, not, as they seem to be grasping for, intellectual honor.

So, though little love can be expressed by a Christian through words alone (for actions are far greater), I simply want those still chasing the hopeless vestigial tail of Darwinism that there is far more hope in this world than the mythical intellectual security provided by the social theories of Charles Darwin and his intellectual descendants.

My hope is that, regardless of your faith that mankind is a strange and random spawning of the natural world, you would instead seek lasting and eternal life and the security of a God who has proved His worth to the world time and time again.

He offers each of us a gift that we are free to reject. By why reject it? It is free, without strings attached and zero intellectual requirements.

It is simply this: to pay for all of the shortcomings of mankind, specifically, to make up the distance between you and perfection, Jesus, perfect and without defect, willingly laid down his life for yours. He sealed his sacrifice by rising again. You can believe this or not. You can accept this gift or not.

Where you spend eternity is far more important than going on about endless geneologies. Your past doesn't make you who you are.

But your present choice makes an impact on all your tomorrows, and could potentially affect the lives of hundreds or thousands of other people in need of help.

The gift is free. I encourage you to take it, if, for no other reason to compare it to the gift that Darwinian thought has offered to you.

The difference between the two is beyond fathoming.

Thanks for your concern, Visitor.

Visitor,

I appreciate your point of view, even though I don't quite understand why you consistently feel the need to back up your faith with allegedly testable claims. If you insist on this, though, then please tell us how we can test the claim that Jesus was the Son of God. Or the claim that Jesus lives today - how would you test that?

Religion is a matter of faith, and your continued attempts to pretend that it is more scientific than science don't hold up to even a cursory examination. But why not be content that it is a matter of faith? Why not accept that science and faith are not necessarily incompatible?

If you believe that God created the universe and life, does that not also allow for the possibility that he also designed the process of evolution? What if he created all of nature, then let it run its course? If this is a possibility, then why deny nature?

What is wrong with exploring nature as it is? Seeing how it works does not need to be an anti-religious venture; it can just as well be an exploration of the marvelous beauty that God created in all its intricacy.