To eljay "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"

You ignore everything you feel like contradicts your own personal beliefs, its sad.

So to all those deniers out there regarding evolution what is your theory on why every accredited university in the whole WORLD teaches evolution as science and as the unifying theory of biology?

Just a little advocate here...

Be careful of that "majority opinion = truth" argument. The answer to your question could very well be "the same reason every accredited university in the whole WORLD taught that the world was the center of the universe for a time."



P.S. I am a proponent of evolution.

That is not my argument, I wish to hear explained the global conspiracy that must be going on for evolution to be completely wrong and yet still taught. This would make my day is the only reason I made this statement.

Lets always acknowledge that a question is a question and a statement is a statement.

Even when a question seems like a statement lets all give each other the benefit of the doubt.

I accept evolution I make no hidden claims otherwise not because its accepted by anyone else, but because I educated myself to its attributes and I agree that the details support the conclusions.

Considering the demographics of AIDS, it gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "having a monkey on your back". Well, at least it isn't a gorilla. (Ouch!)

(I'm so ashamed. )

I think it is perfectly valid to assume a point behind a question. And I did answer the question - at least by implication. And although I was admitedly incorrect in my assumption in detail, the reply was nevertheless a valid response and actually did address the intent of the question...

There does not necessarily have to be a "conspiracy" for people to agree on a wrong conclusion.

(However, personally I too would like to see the question answered by the person to which it was addressed. So in that, I must apologize for interrupting the thread. My bad.)

Yea and sky Im not offended, but the question is kinda rude in the sense that the assumption is one that I accept evolution becuase everyone else does which was not really the heart of the question nor is it true. I actually believed in ID until I went to college and actually learned about evolution and on my own (currently) am learning about genetics.

Perhaps instead of using the word conspiracy I should just say why do we believe it if it is wrong?

The answer (because eljay doesn't know squat about how evolution works) would have to be I don't know, so I thought maybe JUST maybe, we could get some kind of fun answer instead, so that is why I worded it that why, but knowing eljay . . . . all I am going get is more denial and a bunch of garbage about ID, he will use points that the sad group of creationist always use every time they try to refute evolution and I am just not worried about this particular person's understanding of the unifying theory of biology, the single biggest and most fruitful field of research that has every been studied by man -kind to date, and perhaps EVER. (sorry about the run on, I have been sick lately, and Im just not up to edited my post proper like)

Well according to my very basic dictionary:

Theory: 1 rules and techiques. the body of rules that applies to a particular subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice (as in economic theories) 2. Speculation. abstract thought or contemplation. 3 Idea formed by Speculation. an idea of or belief about someting arrived through speculation or conjecture. 4 hypothetical circumstances 5 scientific principle to explain phenomina. a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomina.

These definitions to theory do not line up with what you are proposing theories are. There is nothing implying that a theory must be proved to be "testable" in any definition of theory I've read. Perhaps you mean to use another word. But by examining a definition of theory in a dictionary - you will find that both I.D. and evolution fit these idea's to a "T".

What are you talking about? I don't ignore anything - I go beyond what is expressed to me as "fact" without substanciation - and investigate the premises for myself. And do you even know what the passage you have quoted is about?

Because universities are secular. Did you even need to ask? Are you unaware of this? That it is a prerequisit to being hired that you buy into the evolutionary theory as the origin of the species - and if you even attempt to lecture otherwise - you will be dismissed.

Check out Ben Steins video, and tell me otherwise.

There is a strong possibility that Eljay has forgotten more about evolution than you'll ever know. What evidence do you have to support the idea that I don't know how evolution works? I know what the premises and conjectures are - that doesn't mean I have to believe them. Perhaps the issue is that you know nothing about I.D. and are incapable of understanding biblical concepts which is why you are willing to swallow anything you are told by those who you percieve should know better. Think because you took a few ckasses in college on Biology that your degree is worth more than the three I got.

You know nothing about I.D. beyond your personal presuptions - your arguments have no foundations to support them - nor have you even demonstrated that you understand the concept. Yet you qualify yourself to judge what you think I know about a subject. I've been investigating and examining both sides of this issue longer than you've been alive. Spend some time investigation the many documents refuting evolution - then you'll be up to speed to hold your own in a discussion on this topic with me.

pfft Ben Stein is a hack, I saw expelled and it's a propaganda film full of half truths and flat out lies.

Did you watch the film? Like I said. You are not interexted in investigating anything contrary to your world view, so what qualifies you to have such a strong opinion against that which contradicts your idea of "facts" and the truth?

yes, I did watch the film and as a jew I was offended to the extreme. As every jew should have been.Ben Stein did an injustice to his own people as far as i'm concerned. The core of what is ethically rotten about this movie. Darwinism did not lead to Nazism in Germany. Nor does Darwinism inherently contain the seeds of Nazism.

There were many nations, such as Brazil, where Darwinism led to no political ideology. There were some such as Britain which embraced Darwinism but saw a considerable number of their population killed trying to eliminate Nazism. There were other nations, such as the Soviet Union, where Darwinism was seen as so dangerous and subversive to state sponsored dreams of social engineering that those who espoused it were killed or exiled and a complete biological fairy tale, Lysenkoism, put into classrooms and agricultural policy ultimately leading to the deaths of millions from starvation.

And there were some nations where Darwinism was greeted with glee because it seemed so compatible with the prevailing ideology of the day. In particular the United States at the turn of the 20th century where robber-baron capitalists like the Carnegies, Mellons, Sumners, Stanfords and yes, even Jack London, could not stop rattling on about how the "survival of the fittest" justified crushing unions, exploiting immigrant labor or being left unregulated to amass huge fortunes while administering monopolies.

Ben Stein apparently understands none of this. He flags Darwin but does not bother to go and stare at the busts of Adam Smith, Herbert Spencer, Ernst Haeckel, Thomas Malthus so much beloved by American proponents of survival of the fittest.

Worse yet, while frowning at Darwin’s statute in a manly fashion, Stein makes no mention of the key factors driving Nazi ideology — racism, homophobia and hatred of the mentally ill and disabled.

To lay blame for the Holocaust upon Charles Darwin is to engage in a form of Holocaust denial that should forever make Ben Stein the subject of scorn not because of his nudnik concern that evolution somehow undermines morality but because in this contemptible movie he is willing to subvert the key reason why the Holocaust took place — racism — to serve his own ideological end.

Darwin is the devil.

That is my concern about it. I have absolutely no problem with the concept behind ID being offered as an elective perhaps. Nothing that is required. However the course would need to be outlined very carefully in that it did not favor one religion's concept of the "Intelligent creator" over another. The students would be bound to ask these questions in class also and that would put the instructor (who would that be exactly?) in an awkward position.

You know all the Christian students are going to insist that its the god of the bible and they are most likely to be the ones signing up for an elective of that description as many of them will have Christian parents who are resentful of the fact that they must take a course in Evolutionary Biology so as to create well rounded, intelligent adults out of them.

And women who can solve complex, mathematical equations are Witches.

Indeed.

Oh well since you know so much then it must have been a simple oversight that you asked what genetics has to do with evolution.

Or was that just you showing your ignorance . . . hmm perhaps my youth has lead me to believe your an idiot when in fact you just overlooked the very mechanism that makes variation possible, and the very tool by which natural selection is given its resources . .


I guess your not an idiot, so I apologize for pointing out your questions in a way that made it seem like you had no clue whatsoever regarding evolution . . . I guess I need to go back to school for reading comprehension . . .

Since I know so little about id . . . . why don't you explain how the mechanisms work? Or will that require faith . . lol

No, actually - it was your perception as to what my post was refering to. I was asking the question because you imply that without evolution - there would be no study of genetics.
I merely wanted you to clear that up.

It is not difficult to comprehend I.D. One merely take a moment while sitting in their car that the mechanism did not come about by random chance. And that is merely the most basic of examples to demonstrate that complex organisms - be they man, beast, or machine beg for the concept of a designer to be examined. If not to merely refute it.

What is the argument against I.D. to leave us with evolution as the only viable option? That it is unsubstanciable. But that is the case with evolution. I have never stated that evolutionary theory is not complicated and in need of study, I've stated it is unsubstanciated. Because it introduces possibilities - does not verify it's absolute merely because it seems plausable. Evolution demands that substancial action has taken place. Yet that action cannot be demonstrated. It is up to the student to accept that the action has occured when staring at two fossils presumed to have represented some form of evolution. And further more - that this process is a result of billions of years - with nothing to substanciate that. It isn't so much that it is rejectable, as it is unacceptable to assume that this precludes any other theory offered.

That is my point.

I do not need to be an adherent of I.D. to have formulated this opinion. Don't assume that this is my basis for thought. I did not believe a single premise of Evolutionary theory as an origin of the species when I was an atheist. The same problems exist with it - independent of what my world view has been.