Originally posted by

W.C. Edmunds

Abid, I applaud your scientific perspective on this subject. Alas, the usage of science and reason is inherent in an article in this paper. Therefore, let me be the first to excoriate your arrogant supposition that science supersedes the actions of an omnipotent being. Science is a tool we use to better understand the world and yet it has its limits as every earthly practice does. Your final five-word sentence suggests that we mortal humans possess the aptitude to determine that our science will reach the limit of proving or disproving God. The notion that we possess the quantitative ability to disprove the existence of God is a corollary result of arrogant scientists who believe that their sclerotic dispositions are irrefutable. Kudos for using reason and science; they are certainly measures of understanding but not fully explaining and you fail miserably with this boilerplate article.

Bravo! I couldn't have said it better myself. Science and faith in God do not have mutually exclusive! I belive in God, and Christ, and guess what... that Darwin was brilliant and that evolution does occur, and I am thankful for it!

Originally posted by

W.C. Edmunds

Abid, I applaud your scientific perspective on this subject. Alas, the usage of science and reason is inherent in an article in this paper. Therefore, let me be the first to excoriate your arrogant supposition that science supersedes the actions of an omnipotent being. Science is a tool we use to better understand the world and yet it has its limits as every earthly practice does. Your final five-word sentence suggests that we mortal humans possess the aptitude to determine that our science will reach the limit of proving or disproving God. The notion that we possess the quantitative ability to disprove the existence of God is a corollary result of arrogant scientists who believe that their sclerotic dispositions are irrefutable. Kudos for using reason and science; they are certainly measures of understanding but not fully explaining and you fail miserably with this boilerplate article.

Let me summarize what was said above; "You can't prove that god exist so god exist." This is the reasoning of a 2 year old. Good Scientists based their knowledge on facts, but by the very spirit of science, this knowledge can be challenged and changed. Sadly, no reasoning, logic or fact can challenge the belief in the existence of God. It's not the job of science to prove that God exist, it's the job of people that think like Edmund to prove that it exists... which is impossible. Maybe belief with no proof is acceptable for some of you; but to the more educated it is downright revolting"

"God" wrote:'Let me summarize what was said above; "You can't prove that god exist so god exist." This is the reasoning of a 2 year old. Good Scientists based their knowledge on facts, but by the very spirit of science, this knowledge can be challenged and changed. Sadly, no reasoning, logic or fact can challenge the belief in the existence of God. It's not the job of science to prove that God exist, it's the job of people that think like Edmund to prove that it exists... which is impossible. Maybe belief with no proof is acceptable for some of you; but to the more educated it is downright revolting"'

Belief without certain proof is exactly right. It is the cornerstone of faith. People do not come to belief in God and salvation through facts, "for it is by grace you have been saved, through faith"

Originally posted by

Lisa

Just 700 short years ago the greatest "scientist" thought the world was flat.

Utter nonsense. The sphericity of the earth has been known in the Western world since before Christ, having been determined and quantified by--wait for it--scientific observation and rational thinking. The sphericity hasn't been seriously challenged since the early Middle Ages, and those who challenged it before then did so primarily on--oh yes--religious grounds. Much has been written on this subject, and how it has come to be popular legend that Columbus sailed to prove the shape of the world.

[quote]Just 60 very short years ago, I saw a picture of the first "home computer". Scientist created it to show how impractical it would be.[/quote]

Those would be engineers, not scientists. Irrelevant, however, as that photo is a fake/joke, from an image manipulation contest.

[quote]These two little points prove to me that scientist's think very highly of their so called discoveries.[/quote]

They prove to me that your basis for denigrating science is lack of education, combined with a bit of gullibility.

[quote]Darwin wasn't even a scientist, he was a philosopher[/QUOTE]

This is a new one on me; I suppose it's rising as a creationist talking point? In any case, I guess you're going to pop out with a definition of "scientist" so bizarrely drawn as to be obvious nonsense. He gathered data and made inferences from the natural world based on them; that's a scientist. If you're going to come out with some use of the term "philospher" by Darwin himself, then I have to make sure that you realize that the term "philosophy" changed radically in meaning during the last couple of centuries, and that the word "scientist" was only coined in the 1830s and didn't come into common use until the end of that century.

So as a final word of advice: If you're going to go around criticizing a body of knowledge and the empirical methods that lead to that knowledge, it helps to not make idiotic and false claims along the way. It kinda hurts your credibility.

Originally posted by

Lisa

Spoken like a true scientist. Just 700 short years ago the greatest "scientist" thought the world was flat. All they had to do to prove or disprove it was sail it. Just 60 very short years ago, I saw a picture of the first "home computer". Scientist created it to show how impractical it would be. It took up the whole room. Just 60 years ago! These two little points prove to me that scientist's think very highly of their so called discoveries. I think most of the time they grasp at straws to prove what they are proposing. Darwin wasn't even a scientist, he was a philosopher

It's not only utter lack of awareness, but also highly arrogant of you to make those comments about science and scientists. Science progress by questioning itself, that's why it moves forward ... if it would hold a belief system thousands of years old, and never question that, then it would stuck at a point ... and it couldn't bless the mankind with countless inventions .... But perhaps you are too ignorant to appreciate that .... That's why your are using a computer, one of science's gift to mankind, and blaming science !

Originally posted by

Lisa

Spoken like a true scientist. Just 700 short years ago the greatest "scientist" thought the world was flat. All they had to do to prove or disprove it was sail it. Just 60 very short years ago, I saw a picture of the first "home computer". Scientist created it to show how impractical it would be. It took up the whole room. Just 60 years ago! These two little points prove to me that scientist's think very highly of their so called discoveries. I think most of the time they grasp at straws to prove what they are proposing. Darwin wasn't even a scientist, he was a philosopher

Dear Lisa, your post shows that you have absolutely no idea what science is or how it works. Yes hundreds of years ago people thought the earth was flat, and guess what? When they realized it wasn't they changed their belief. Science is not an answer; it is a method. Where anything accepted as fact is done so based on evidence, but evidence is only as good as the tools used to acquire it, so no scientist holds to these facts as absolute truths. Religion on the other hand does not evolve, they still belief the same illogical, comical and downright stupid things that they did 700 years ago. Why? Because religion is an answer, religion says "This is how" and it is never questioned. Religious people should be ashamed of themselves for believing something with no evidence or logic.

Originally posted by

Kyle Richter

It seems that this is another part of Abid's saga as he rambles his way through yet another article attacking Christianity...

He never once mentioned Christianity, Christians, or anything at all specifically related to the religion. Unless, of course, you think ID is a part of Christianity. In which case, I would have you read up on your own semantic proponents. ID wouldn't make it into schools if it was Christian, so it's simply about "the designer". Otherwise it would be the Intelligent Jesus theory.

The rest of you reply was very whiny, I wonder where I could copy and paste a generic whine about you whining...

Originally posted by

Kyle Richter

It seems that this is another part of Abid's saga as he rambles his way through yet another article attacking Christianity. You are right, the debate does not end and both sides won't ever agree, but that is the extent of what isn't drivel coming out of your pen.

This is a one sided juxtaposition, invalidating any and all accusations you have against intelligent design. By definition, a 'debate' is the communication of two opposing views, something that is conveniently missing here.

Living in the Christian world, we tend to believe the Christian side of things first until otherwise proven false. Until you can show me convincing evidence that evolution is plausible (like the nonexistant 'missing link'), I will ignore your asinine statement that "it just evolved that way."

You started your article by apologizing to nonbelievers in Darwinian Evolution, but you should have apologized to everyone that had to read this childish fussing over nothing you are qualified to write about.

Sear Kyle, you have betrayed your ignorance in this post by referencing a 'missing link' How silly is it to argue against something when you have no idea how it works. Saying that you don't believe in evolution is like saying you don't believe in physics because of the 'missing mass' in the universe. If you are truly interested in having a debate, please read and research evolution... there is not one missing link in evolution there are many. Just like they are many gaps in knowledge and understanding of every science, however, the basic principals that demonstrate that evolution is a sound scientific field is there. Go read a few journals, educate yourself, then argue against it.

"we tend to believe the Christian side of things first until otherwise proven false"

This is a completely illogical way to go about acquiring knowledge. If I told you that a green elephant existed outside of the universe that created and controls it; would you believe that until proven otherwise? You can never prove that anything outside the universe is real. That's why most sensible people do the opposite; they belief in something ONLY when it is proven (in the current realm of knowledge) to be true, then they stop believing in it if proven otherwise.

well that's funny, do some research yourself. Christians don't believe that Jesus is the creator. go read a book...the good book.

Originally posted by

Kyle Richter

It seems that this is another part of Abid's saga as he rambles his way through yet another article attacking Christianity. You are right, the debate does not end and both sides won't ever agree, but that is the extent of what isn't drivel coming out of your pen.

This is a one sided juxtaposition, invalidating any and all accusations you have against intelligent design. By definition, a 'debate' is the communication of two opposing views, something that is conveniently missing here.

Living in the Christian world, we tend to believe the Christian side of things first until otherwise proven false. Until you can show me convincing evidence that evolution is plausible (like the nonexistant 'missing link'), I will ignore your asinine statement that "it just evolved that way."

You started your article by apologizing to nonbelievers in Darwinian Evolution, but you should have apologized to everyone that had to read this childish fussing over nothing you are qualified to write about.

You idiot, did you read the whole article? He wasn't attacking Christianity, and he wasn't invalidating arguments against intelligent design-- in fact, he acknowledged that those ideas might be true. However, as there is no way to test them, which makes them scientifically useless as the point of science is the pursuit of useable, testable knowledge, your creationism simply isn't science. That doesn't mean it can't be true, it just means, that as it cannot be tested empirically and verified through repeated tests, it is not science.

Originally posted by

Tim

How can evolution be compatible with religion when Gen 1:12,24 explicitly state that plants and animals will "yield seed after their own kind".

Please don't use the bible to quote historical fact. It wasn't meant for that purpose.

Originally posted by

Tim

How can evolution be compatible with religion when Gen 1:12,24 explicitly state that plants and animals will "yield seed after their own kind".

How can your "genetics" and the theory of atoms be compatible with my religion when Gen 2:7 explicitly states that man was created by dust and God's breath.

How can your "anatomy" and the skeleton be compatible with my religion when Gen 2:22-24 explicitly states that woman was created by Adam's rib.

How can your "Zoobooks for kids!" and dental records, and mosquitoes be compatible with my religion when Gen 1:30 explicitly states that all animals were originally herbivores (unless you want to argue mosquitoes evolved to suck blood).

It's almost as if this "science" (a deductive process of logical steps to reach a logical conclusion) is at odds with every claim made in my infalliable Holy book!

Originally posted by

Tim

How can evolution be compatible with religion when Gen 1:12,24 explicitly state that plants and animals will "yield seed after their own kind".

I do not understand how you can logically argue that something of the intelligence of a human could evolve from a micro-organism as Darwin states. Yes, things do become better suited to their environment, but they stay within their own species. Even mules that come from the mating of donkeys and horses cannot reproduce, further validating the premise stated in Genesis.

I think that you may be misunderstanding the concept of evolution. One has to take into account the incredibly vast amount of time that exists between the first appearance of microorganisms, such as cyanobacteria, over two billion years ago, and the appearance of the first anatomically modern humans somewhere around 200,000 years ago. We cannot possibly comprehend that quantity of time. Evolution proceeds at varying rates, whether it be very gradually, such is presented in Darwinian theory, or rather rapidly through what is known as punctuated equilibrium. As was stated in the article, DNA is the material through which organisms have evolved. Mutations to this DNA, whether through ultraviolet light, or some other means, may lead to the creation of new genes that may or may not be advantageous to an organism. These mutations provide greater variation within a population. After accumulating enough changes, this may lead to the development of a new species. The recent discovery of the homeobox/Hox genes shows how even slight changes to DNA can produce dramatic changes to an organism (I urge you to look up this research and see for yourself). Other events that may lead to speciation are genetic drift, gene flow, the founder effect, etc. As organisms accumulate changes throughout time, they may become tremendously different from their genetic predecessors. Yes, humans are extremely complex, that is part of the reason why it took us such a long time to evolve. Furthermore, mules are unable to reproduce, because they are hybrids, not a true species, and lack the correct number of chromosomes to produce viable offspring. My point in writing this response is just to point out that evolution is not evil, it does not hate religion, it just is what it is. What could be more incredible and wonderful than a God who can appreciate the complexity of life on earth and the world that he created?

Originally posted by

Tim

How can evolution be compatible with religion when Gen 1:12,24 explicitly state that plants and animals will "yield seed after their own kind".

I do not understand how you can logically argue...

That's the problem Tim; you do not understand. Have you ever tried to read up about evolution? As a general rule in life, you should never criticize anything until you have a fundamental knowledge of what it is and how it works. I would gladly debate the finer points of evolution with you (if you knew them).

Originally posted by

Tim

How can evolution be compatible with religion when Gen 1:12,24 explicitly state that plants and animals will "yield seed after their own kind".

I do not understand how you can logically argue that something of the intelligence of a human could evolve from a micro-organism as Darwin states. Yes, things do become better suited to their environment, but they stay within their own species. Even mules that come from the mating of donkeys and horses cannot reproduce, further validating the premise stated in Genesis.

If a donkey and a horse can have offspring that is neither donkey nor horse, does that not invalidate your statement from Genesis?

...and with that, the Creator disappeared in a puff of logic.

[QUOTE id="06b9b50b-ddd6-4454-b0e1-4598ecda3d21"]How can evolution be compatible with religion when Gen 1:12,24 explicitly state that plants and animals will "yield seed after their own kind".QUOTE]

Don't believe everything you read.

Originally posted by

Reginald

Wow, a very well thought out article and all the comments are the usual crazy vitriol of the far-right - are all Aggies really this dumb?

Longhorn here, laughing at you.

Do all longhorns really make such dumb general statements?

Good article, enjoyed reading it.

Originally posted by

Reginald

Wow, a very well thought out article and all the comments are the usual crazy vitriol of the far-right - are all Aggies really this dumb?

Longhorn here, laughing at you.

Laughing right back at you, socialist.
In comparison Mein Kampf was very well thought out. Comparison's abound.

Saw em off, again...

Originally posted by

Reginald

Wow, a very well thought out article and all the comments are the usual crazy vitriol of the far-right - are all Aggies really this dumb?

Longhorn here, laughing at you.

You should know that the people who comment most fervently on these things are typically the most extreme either way. Also, I'm glad you have nothing better to do than read other schools' newspapers' comments section. You're really living it up in Austin, aren't you?

Originally posted by

Matt

I'm sorry, the majority of people haven't been able to digest the theory of evolution? That seems slightly off when, according to a poll which can be found here (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html) only a third of americans believe that there is no such thing as evolution and only 14% of europeans. So where is this "majority?"

In Texas.

Originally posted by

Gil Rosenthal

As an evolutionary biologist, I applaud Abid's piece. This is the most cogent response to "intelligent design" I've seen in a long time. Whatever your particular beliefs, it is the ultimate intellectual and moral cop-out to sweep any phenomenon under the cozy rug of divine intervention. Besides constituting manifest hogwash on both scientific and theological grounds, "intelligent design" is, as Abid so eloquently puts it, a "statement of ignorance".

Gil Rosenthal
Assistant Professor of Biology

No where in the movie does it say that the "designer" has to be God or another deity. It is simply supporting the idea that the first cell could've been created by a supreme intelligence, like aliens perhaps. It's just an alternative solution to an unsolved mystery(however I assume you think it already has been solved).

But since you're a "scientist" we have to believe you and your so called "consensus," or otherwise we're just ignorant. [/sarcasm] Did I get that right?

Ryan,
I'm certainly not asking you to believe me as a "scientist", with or without accompanying quotation marks. I'm just saying that there is a fascinating body of scholarship out there on the origins and evolution of life, and trying to figure out how life originated and how it continues to evolve is much more interesting than saying, ok, we were put here by aliens, end of story, let's go watch "American Idol". "Intelligent design" is intellectual laziness. Debates grounded in data and guided by reason are what keeps science moving; by contrast, arguments that are devoid of evidence or logic are just a waste of time. "Intelligent design", along with flat-earth theory and Holocaust denial, falls squarely into the latter category.

Originally posted by

Gil Rosenthal

As an evolutionary biologist, I applaud Abid's piece. This is the most cogent response to "intelligent design" I've seen in a long time. Whatever your particular beliefs, it is the ultimate intellectual and moral cop-out to sweep any phenomenon under the cozy rug of divine intervention. Besides constituting manifest hogwash on both scientific and theological grounds, "intelligent design" is, as Abid so eloquently puts it, a "statement of ignorance".

Gil Rosenthal
Assistant Professor of Biology

Ryan,

1. Nowhere is one word.
2. Substituting the word "God" for "a supreme intelligence" does not get you off the hook, even if you do think that "Nowhere" is two words.
3. You ARE ignorant...beyond belief. When have you ever, ever conducted any sort of respectable experiment? Maybe instead of voicing your opinion on matters of which you haven't the least bit of knowledge, you should pick up a book and learn about evolutionary theory. Careful, though. You might just find out that evolutionary biology makes absolutely no attempt to address the existence of a deity. We are too busy conducting science, and using sophisticated words like "nowhere".

Originally posted by

Gil Rosenthal

As an evolutionary biologist, I applaud Abid's piece. This is the most cogent response to "intelligent design" I've seen in a long time. Whatever your particular beliefs, it is the ultimate intellectual and moral cop-out to sweep any phenomenon under the cozy rug of divine intervention. Besides constituting manifest hogwash on both scientific and theological grounds, "intelligent design" is, as Abid so eloquently puts it, a "statement of ignorance".

Gil Rosenthal
Assistant Professor of Biology

maybe that's your problem. you have no belief in anything. how do you explain your miserable existance. maybe if i call you 'ignorant' a lot it will make me look smarter too. (oh i didn't use proper punctuation either, better get on me about it)

Originally posted by

Gil Rosenthal

As an evolutionary biologist, I applaud Abid's piece. This is the most cogent response to "intelligent design" I've seen in a long time. Whatever your particular beliefs, it is the ultimate intellectual and moral cop-out to sweep any phenomenon under the cozy rug of divine intervention. Besides constituting manifest hogwash on both scientific and theological grounds, "intelligent design" is, as Abid so eloquently puts it, a "statement of ignorance".

Gil Rosenthal
Assistant Professor of Biology

Elsa,

1. You provide us with a perfect example of why Intelligent Design is a stupid idea. Why would an omnipotent being allow Gil's existence to be miserable?
2. You certainly can point your finger and call people ignorant, but you have no real leverage to do so with. Remember, it is important to be informed before you attempt to join in the conversation.
3. Poor grammar and punctuation makes the baby Jesus cry.
4. Don't flatter yourself, nobody wants to "get on you." Trust me, intellectual laziness is a MAJOR turn off.

Originally posted by

Gil Rosenthal

As an evolutionary biologist, I applaud Abid's piece. This is the most cogent response to "intelligent design" I've seen in a long time. Whatever your particular beliefs, it is the ultimate intellectual and moral cop-out to sweep any phenomenon under the cozy rug of divine intervention. Besides constituting manifest hogwash on both scientific and theological grounds, "intelligent design" is, as Abid so eloquently puts it, a "statement of ignorance".

Gil Rosenthal
Assistant Professor of Biology

Yeah Ryan, what kind of an IDIOT would listen to a scientist about science?? LOL.

Originally posted by

Jill

I quite enjoyed reading this article. Very well thought-out and written.

I am saddened, however, at the number of comments above that claim ID is a suitable replacement to the theory of evolution. It's a shame that so many people choose to draw their conclusions based on blind ignorance rather than thinking it out for themselves.

I don't think ID replaces evolution nor is it as much of a theological argument as some people think it is. Do you think many of the scientists who support ID are blindly ignorant? No one is saying that ID is THE answer, it's just another way of looking at an unsolved mystery of how the first cell came about. What is a shame is that you assume people are accepting this fact out of blind ignorance.

Well ID is NOT a theory ... it's a claim made by conservative christians .... First make that clear .... there has not been any , let me repeat, ANY publication in any Peer Review Science journal. So Jill was infact right .... the very existance of such a movement in the support of this ID claim is a shame ... shame for the country, the science community and the mankind !

Originally posted by

Louis

another half-researched article by a foreigner who thinks he knows us.

Another stupid comment from an arrogant person who thinks that he knows science !

And wassup with my nationality ?? is that a deciding factor in science these days ?? LMAO !!! i just laugh at ur ignorance and lack of awareness !!

Originally posted by

Louis

another half-researched article by a foreigner who thinks he knows us.

When you make ignorant, ethnocentric, arrogant comments like that, you make all Aggies look bad, so do us all a favor and keep your thoughts to yourself.

Originally posted by

Louis

another half-researched article by a foreigner who thinks he knows us.

Your ignorance and primitive way of thinking is proof that evolution is right. Most of us have evolved beyond simple thinking like yours. BTW, for your own enlightenment, Abid was born and raised in Texas. It's amazing how you could tell about someone's origins or what they understand just by their name.

Originally posted by

Louis

another half-researched article by a foreigner who thinks he knows us.

If you are going to make sweeping generalizations based on names than you yourself would also be qualified as a "foreigner" since Louis is a name from French and Old German heritage. It came to popularity in France in the 18th century by way of the Kings and Saints...

Don't be such an arrogant jack ass and judge people by their names. Unless your name & blood line is of PURE Native American decent, then we are all foreigners... then again you probably believe that Columbus discovered America.

Originally posted by

Louis

another half-researched article by a foreigner who thinks he knows us.

People like you embarass the hell out of the rest of us. David, I know I'm not supposed to post comments, but COME ON.

Abid is an amazing writer, and, judging from the vile hatred you spew, an infinitely better American than you are.

Originally posted by

ali

and the fact that the world is in its entirety only 6000 yrs old (count the years from Adam to Jesus it a little more then 4000 years. Then add 2000 from Jesus to 2007, makes around 6000 give or take a few) hardly leaves time for evolution since evolution is based on natural selection with even small changes requiring multiple generations. now if you consider the avg age of a human to be 60 ...so in 6000 yrs we have 100 generations ....how the hell am i supposed to believe that in 100 generations a fish spouted little fish legs, walked onshore , spouted little fish arms ...slowly nature decided a bi-pedal structure would be more suited and then we get to the monkey part, slowly the monkey's spine straightened ...and the monkey decided to come down from the trees and slowly the cromagon and onto the homo sapien and all the good stuff started ...
NO ABID ...based on this mathematical impossibility ....i would strongly urge you to rescind your article in the face of my dammening argument to the otherwise

Did i miss something ?? Was this post a joke or was it serious ?? u must be joking ..... or may be you can't count beyond 6000 ... that's why u r thinkin that earth is 6000 yr old where even a 6th grader knows the answer that it's 4.5 billion years old !!

Originally posted by

Sophia

Good job on the article. Sorry for the nasty comments, it's embarrassing sometimes. And some people see persecution every time other people know something they don't.

That's funny, because the science community seems to lash out every time someone brings up intelligent design.

And what is your proof that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Here we have one person giving specific dates and references to records (whether you believe their validity or not, there are records) and another that says all 6th graders know how old the earth really is...well, HOW do you know the earth is that old? Last time I was in 6th grade there weren't any written records dating 4.5 billion BC.

But that's been quite a few years; maybe they've changed the curriculum since I was there...idk