Popular Science News $section News
  Get Popular Science posters here! > Subscribe | > Newsletter 

What's New
Photo Gallery
Aviation & Space
Automotive Tech
Contact Us
Digital Edition
Customer Service
Gift Subscription
Current Issue
Media Kit
PS Showcase
PopSci Store

Enter e-mail address to receive popsci weekly updates to your inbox.


« Climbing out of the Slime | Main | Like Butta (On a Hot Skillet) »



When it comes down to it the people who need to explain themselves are not the scientists, who will always be more than willing to hand over their binders and databases full of calculations and results for open review and critique, but the religious zealots who are willing to base their lives off of books that are millenia old, each with conflicting versions and revisions of events and lessons, and with myriads of interpretations that have led to the rise of a seemingly infinite variation on a base religion (Christianity, for instance) that agrees on main ideas but bicker about the fine minutae of the teachings (Catholic vs. Protestant vs. Mormon, etc).

Regardless, I actually own a degree in Evolutionary Biology (a degree some of you may think is as useless as a degree in Phys. Ed., and which as I look for jobs makes me almost think the same thing) and the fact is that if you take the time to actually study it, the sheer amount of physical evidence and mathematical logic to the whole system, you can't help but agree with it.

The fact that ID has been such a movement as of late is not because it is a revolutionary idea (the idea of the watch and watchmaker has been around for a few centuries now), but that the people behind it are whip-crack smart at advertising and self-promotion. I will give them the honor at being personally blown away not by their "science" but by their PR department. People who are uneasy with the concept of evolution have been waiting for years for something like this to come along so they can grab onto it. The fact that we scientists are willing to raise such a fuss over it is merely increasing its publicity.

And while it may be ironic that I am joining in on the debate after declaiming it as a way to bolster a bullshit, thinly veiled religious crusade, I'd like to end this whole debate by reiterating the words of the original author of this blog post, John Mahoney:

Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill!


Oh, and if you think science is a religion, chant that mantra to the gods of wind, rain, and salted peanuts the next time you step onto a plane. Or the gods of the bodily humours (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humours) next time you need to get surgery. They may serve you as well as that kooky religion called "science" has at keeping you healthy and safe.


May I add just a personal insight in regard to ID and watches being found in fields.

Finding a watch in a field certainly does imply some sort of watchmaker. This may have been a human watchmaker. Maybe it was made by another species though, or a watchmaking mechanism. Whatever further investigation uncovers, only one conclusion may be drawn for certain: the watch presents the end of a long chain of evolutionary development. It did not come into being, and here the proponents of ID happily agree, out of the blue through some mysterious force. So no god created the watch. The argument actually proves the nonexistence of divine intervention. Does it hold true only in this instance? No, the argument is as valid for any daisy in the same or any other field.

Whatever the discussion, at the end there remains one key question for rational thinking people as well as proponents of ID: how did it all start? As far as human logic goes, all evidence points in one direction. Intelligence is never the starting point, but happens at some point far into the journey. It is illogic to imagine things otherwise.

Religion certainly serves a purpose. Especially in these troubled times of a new holy war between Christianity and Islam, this purpose is easily exposed. That religious leaders vehemently discourage individual thought and deviation from doctrine, is no coincidence. And most people, humans being herd animals, would rather not think for themselves. They will happily accept whatever irrationallities they are presented with, as long as they are promissed good pasture - in this life, or the next.

I guess it is futile really, to argue with people who believe in any kind of religion. These people represent the vast majority and are irrational by nature. Which maybe explains, why we humans as a species are willing to even destroy the very substance of our lives for short term gains.

Jesse Gardner


Everyone quibbles that science can't explain everything, by God (oops! by gum!) everything we know up to this point is right!

The very fact that we learn new things every day demonstrates the insufficiency of human knowledge. So to pick up your torch and pitchfork when someone says something that 'science' doesn't agree with is disingenuous, at best. The Bible was claiming that the life of the flesh was in the blood long before they bled George Washington to death.


I just love the generalizations...

I believe science...I'm smart
You have faith in God...you are dumb

Elementary school at it's finest!

I like this one: really improbable thing (macro-evolution from glorified pond scum) + lots and lots of years = intelligent, sentient life

I guess my point is that science and religion both take faith. The scientific method is great at proving what is easily measurable, but it still takes guesswork and theories. Man is so arrogant.

Mike Rezendes (again)

@ William Holt

I dont believe in "god" at all, and have considered myself an atheist as far as any of that is concerned.. I consider christians and any other religious people to be "cultist" weirdos.

DNA is alien. This is a fact, it did not "evolve" on our planet, it was either deposited here directly or indirectly. There are many other factors that lead me to believe that we were genetically engineered at some point along our evolutionary line..

Explain the sudden emergence and prowess of the Sumerian Civilization?

Explain why the gap between Homo Sapiens, and Homo Sapiens Sapiens is way shorter than it should be?

For me, I can just look at the structure of DNA and it rings a chord within me, that it is way too perfect to have come into existence from "trial and error"

I believe the earth to be 4.5 Billion years old, as evidenced by fossilied stromatolites discovered in Australia..

Explain the domestications and breeding of Canines?? You think we developed that many specialized pure breeds throught trial and error? Look at canines history with man, it dates back to the Sumerians (the emrgence of civilization and Homo Sapiens Sapiens)... You think that was accomplished by trial and error in that sort amount of time???

Although I am an atheist, I do have to acknowledge the great deal of factual evidence and information that has been obtained from the bible. This leads me to believe that alot of it is true, and either lost in translation,metaphors or misconceptions...

Take for example the Trilothon blocks at Baalbak. Some of the largest cut stones in the whole world, and how did we find the quarry where the rocks came from? We consulted the bible.. What did it say? It said that the giants quarried and carried the rocks into place, and it told the location of the quarry, abd thats exactly where it was to be found...

Do some research about evolution before you cling to it so vainly like I once did... Learn about carpenter genes and how they prevent mutations (which are not beneficial to dna since it is in a sense already perfect).. What are the odds/liklihood of 2 random animals of the same species, carrying the same genetic mutation,mating many many times, in order to possibly have any chance of passing on the mutation???

Also think monotheism is a comple load of crap, that was a simple mistake of loosing one letter of the ends of the word. God is supposed to be 'GODS'... Many religions have more than one god, this american/euro bullshit religion has one god. Ever think its weird that the word god is only one letter aay from the word GOOD?

How about the fact that many cultures worshipped 'the sun' (which is the life giver to our planet) and that people worship 'jesus; who was "the son" of god?

hmmmmmmm H.Sapiens Sapiens a prodcut of trial an error?

I think not....

Science is funny..

In as little as 100 years, you will look back and consider this current era, barbaric, savage and unknowing......

Science is like a game of mastermind... And trust me I love science.

Also try to explain why humans dont use the full capacity of their brains? And how humans are the only animals capable of memory and conceiving future, present and past. We can control the future. We can imagine something and make it a reality, nothing else on this rock can do that????

"You can't create energy"

oh yea?

You can create thoughts, and that can create energy...

People nowadays seem like they are living in a capped society...


Well, first of all I should apologize because I got carried away a little in my previous post. Yes, there are a lot of really smart people out there, some of them reputable scientists, who do believe in some sort of religion. Sorry to you guys, I did not want to insult you. Yet I am certain anyone can be really smart in some ways and still suffer from the mental disorder commonly called religion.

But getting back to the matter at hand. Yes, science is still the best bet, if you want to understand what is going on around you. (Un)fortunately it is an ongoing process, so we do not know everything about everything. But we do know something about some things. Sometimes science draws the wrong conclusions, sometimes even paradigms foot on wrong conclusions. Still, science is the ultimate tool for understanding. Where science is in error, it has appropriate tools to correct itself in time. Failing to understand how science works is typical for some of the religious antiscientists.

Our problem is much less the scientific process. Rather it is the massive flood of knowledge sweeping across our little planet these days. No single human being can comprehend more than a tiny fraction of the whole. Yet, even (especially) the most shallow minded amongst us, think they are experts at just about everything, coming up with homecooked conclusions, completely wrong most of the time, but shouting out, if not eloquent, then that much louder. Knowledge is neither good nor bad, but a little bit of it may be dangerous. Mixing science and religion is prone to give more than just a bit of a headache.

Let me give you an example. You, the religious fanatic might be putting up a paradigm like: "the Universe revolves around the earth." Then you pretend to be scientific and explain how this earth centered universe is supposed to function, using scientific language. After which you go and demand to be heard in the same forum as any true scientist. Quite naturally there will be some scientists who will find your proposition preposterous. They will say so. They will prove it to you. But you, being faith based, will just shout out louder and louder, until one day the scientists will give up arguing. What happened? Easy to explain. No one in his right mind will again and again argue against the same unreasonable thesis ad infinitum. But you, having a mental disorder, religion, are of course capable of chanting anything, for as long as it takes. This may be a simple "oohm" or the thesis of an earth centered universe. It is like cancer of the mind. In time, nothing else seems more important. Unfortunately for the rest of the world this mental disorder is not easily recognized. And humans being herd animals are always listening for the voice to lead them out of the dark. For many of them the different theses are indistiguishable. Et voila, you ´ve got them following you, infecting their feeble minds with the same mental disorder.

Conclusion: if you feel a bout of religion coming on, please consult with your nearest mental institution, but check first, if they are not already infected too.

Of course this is all a little tongue in cheek. But since religious fanatics can not be influenced by reason, I might as well annoy you all a little. :)

Point of Inquiry

Bill Nye discusses this incident and the problems he has with fundamentalists in a new podcast inteview at www.pointofinquiry.org.


I would agree that religion takes faith. I do believe in science as well. However, I also believe there is a lot of falsely so called science that is equally if not much more based on faith. One of you said something about assuming gravity always works unless the variables changed would have to consider that statement when referencing to the past. To say something acted the same 4000 years or 4million years ago would require you to assume(or believe)(or have faith) that the variables we consider today have always been the same. Yet evolution itself states that things infact have changed tremendously. This same principal can be applied to carbon dating and pretty much any method used to consider the past. There is a serious problem with this theory. Just for the record, many stand on the bible because it hasn't changed but still remains accurate even with our changing knowledge.what do you think?


you know, a book doesn't have to be a science book to be scientifically accurate. If someone writes a biography about a man and says he weighs 150 lbs, jumped off a 200 foot cliff and hit the ground at 60 mph, you could do alittle physics to figure out if that statement is scientifically accurate or not. So even though its a biography it can still be scientifically accurate. I believe the bible falls into this category. Also, I would like someone to fit evolution into the scientific method or the definition of science. It is not observable,experimentable, repeatable,and does seem to violate many scientific laws such as boigenesis, 2 thermodynamics,etc.it just doesn't fit with the method when you relate observable science with beginnings. I believe in the beginning "God" and you believe in the beginning "matter or energy" so tell me how mine has any more faith than yours. Love ya, but only a fool professes himself wise(NIV).


you know, a book doesn't have to be a science book to be scientifically accurate. If someone writes a biography about a man and says he weighs 150 lbs, jumped off a 200 foot cliff and hit the ground at 60 mph, you could do alittle physics to figure out if that statement is scientifically accurate or not. So even though its a biography it can still be scientifically accurate. I believe the bible falls into this category. Also, I would like someone to fit evolution into the scientific method or the definition of science. It is not observable,experimentable, repeatable,and does seem to violate many scientific laws such as boigenesis, 2 thermodynamics,etc.it just doesn't fit with the method when you relate observable science with beginnings. I believe in the beginning "God" and you believe in the beginning "matter or energy" so tell me how mine has any more faith than yours. Love ya, but only a fool professes himself wise(NIV).


I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but for the athiests outthere I want you to remember something. You can't prove scientifically that there is no God anymore than christians can prove there is a God. Atheism is a belief. You have to believe there is no God because you can't prove God doesn't exist. All I'm saying is that you shouuld think about that before criticizing christians for their beliefs. I am a christian and I love science, just not when its misrepresented.


I'm actually writing a paper on intelligent design for my research paper class. During the research part, I spent a lot of time looking at both sides of the fence. There was a common theme on both sides. Each claimed that the other was not a valid theory. Both claimed that the other was not provable.

While the claims against the provability of the theory of evolution are a little difficult to unravel, the claims against ID are very simple. Intelligent Design explicitly states that natural processes COULD NOT have been responsable for the origin of life; it would take a previous intelligence to create, or 'kick off' life. The express denial of mechanistic processes lends disprovability; prove that a naturalistic process can create life, and you disprove the premise of ID.

Well, I just realised I'm going to wander around a bit so, I'll clear one thing up in advance, and get to my point.

ID IS a scientific theory, but it has a vague conclusion. It works to establish correlation between the apparent design in life and intelligence, and expressly denies the possibility of a purely mechanistic process creating life. Opponents claim that this is a blatant repackaging of creationism. It isn't. Those who developed the theory certainly wanted to show how science points to God, but it stands on its own. Remove it from Christian context, and ID could just as easily support, say, scientology. ID is used to support the idea of a judeo-Christian God, but does not in and of itself point to any God or deity in particular.

Now, my point. Neither creationism nor the 'theory' of evolution are scientific theories. They are forensics models. They are sets of assumptions used to interpret evidence left behind from an irreproducable event or series of events. They do make SOME predictions, but are not inherently disprovable, and lack the direct testability of a true scientific theory. These forensics models spawn theories of their own that are scientifically valid in that they are testable and dis/provable. ID is the obvious example for creationism, and biochemical predestination is an obvious one for "evolution." Either one of these theories could be disproven, but to do so would not single-handedly bring down their respective forensics models.

And how is the idea of God unscientific? God Himself may not be scientifically verifiable, but His work is. Problem is, nobody wants to admit Everything as evidence for God, since apparently you have to prove that God exists before it is possible to present Everthing as evidence to begin with.

To claim there is no God assumes knowledge of everything that exists, and thus knowledge of what doesn't exist; in short, it assumes the attribute of being all-knowing. Only God is given the attribute of being all-knowing. Thus, to claim God does not exist is to proclaim yourself God.


I love how people so OFTEN forget that evolution is nothing more than a THEORY. T-H-E-O-R-Y. This means that it has NOT been proven. It has been well speculated since the original idea came out, and a lot of people REALLY WISH that they could prove it. Who wouldn't. If you could prove that there is no God and that evolution is true, then it means that no one is accountable to anything but himself. Man has been trying to do that since man first appeared here on earth.

What it boils down to is this. Evolution is a myth at this point, even in science. On that note, you could also say that "ID" is a myth. However, I take great offence to the idea that I will have to send my children into a school system that, by LAW, is forbidden to teach them the very possibility that man may have possibily, maybe, could have, been actually created by an intelligent designer, yet they, by LAW, are required to teach them what is still very much a THEORY that man, and all life magically spawned out of some primordial pool atop a volcano somewhere out of what is agreed could have only been in-organic matter. How exactly that's possible, for organic matter to just spawn out of inorganic matter, I don't know. You ever hear of the "missing link"? Well, theres a million of them in the theory of evolution. This is why REAL scientists will agree 100% that evolution is unproven, and remains a theory to this day. You wouldn't know that by watching the news lately and seeing these ridiculous stories about people suing school systems for teaching children the "lies" of ID in addition to the "truths" of evolution. Just as Jeremy previously posted above, There is not a single man on earth who can honestly say that they know the truth, and I don't think that some federal judge in Pennsylvania meets the criteria of "all-knowing".

This forcible teaching of evolution upon our public is outright brainwashing and is becoming fascism, as recent lawsuits have proven. Hands down. You want to ignore the possibility of ID in our schools, well then lets also ignore the possibility of evolution in our schools. They're both unproven in science.

Now, don't get me wrong here. I'm not going to sit here and say that either is true. Regardless of what personal beliefs I may have, I will not sit here and say that I KNOW what is right. But I'll be damned if I will sit here and let someone else tell me that they KNOW what is right, while they are unable to provide proper proof. It's very unscientfic, to say the least.

A large portion of scientific community is trying to purport something that has barely made off of the 1st rung of the great scientific method. Theory. It's barely made it to Hypothesis. People have been trying to use the hypothesis to prove that it's true, while quaintly ignoring the fact that it's never been proven. The only "proofs" people have ever given me of evolution end up only being other unproven theories. So what does that leave?

Faith. The scientific community has FAITH in evolution. It is a theory. It is unproven. They really want it to be true. They push it onto people. Sound famaliar? I'm going to start calling them "evangelutionists", lol. In effect, evolution is no less of a religion than they claim intelligent design to be.

Now, on another note. How in the world is the idea of intelligent design automatically relate to religion and philosophy. Granted, this is kind of a loaded question at first, but just hear me out here. I have read some of the most rude and belligerent statements from some people claiming that "Intelligent design is just nice friendly sterile way to recruit people into 'insert religion here' blah blah blah". This is just absurd. For all of the scientific community's attention to detail, and supposed "unbiased" points of view, they sure are quick to dump the idea of ID to the wayside BEFORE it even reaches the Hypothesis stage. When an archeologist finds a clay pot from 5000 years ago buried in the sand in some dig somewhere, do you think the first thing he thinks is "Gee, this clay pot was formed naturally by the evolution of 'mother earth'". No, it is pretty obvious that it was made by someone. It's in a specific molded, symetrical shape that was obviously shaped by a person with a little time. When they uncover walls that have been buried for thousands of years, do u think that they assume that it is a natural occurance? Of course not. That, too, would be absurd. Likewise, all religion aside, is it so ridiculous to think that when you see billions of functioning, downright mechanical-esque, biological organisms that are around us, ranging from humans to amoeba, when looked at closely, appear to be functioning systems of smaller interconnecting sub-systems all interacting with each other in a very organized and consistent way involved in precariously balanced eco-systems, that perhaps, all of this was orchestrated by someone with.. intelligence? It took man thousands of years to build our knowledge to a point where we can, only relatively recently, actually begin to comprehend this organization, yet we somehow want to believe, almost illogically, that it all spawned out of chaos? That life started from a single-celled organism with no estabilished DNA, and over the course of thousands of years nature essentially wrote the programming language that is DNA into the genes of all the varying plant and animal life on earth? WOW, now THAT IS faith. This is not logic, guys.

I hesitate to bring it up, but this is like the old analogy that you can detonate an explosion in the middle of a junkyard, and a brand new bright shiny '06 Honda Accord will be left in the aftermath.

Also, worth nothing is another source of MUCH confusion. There is a consistently required connection amongst lots of people between the big-bang, and the origins of human life. This is ridiculous. I've seen a few posts above trying to link the two together, and this is a classic "tactic". However,this is purely a product of the 2 schools of thought both, once again, trying to claim that they each know everything. Yet these are two completely different topics, different theory's, and for the record, two occurances so far apart in the scope of history that they could and should not be tied together. There are tons more proof of the big bang then there EVER has been of evolution. (And, btw, where did that matter originally come from, and where did the energy that "big-banged" it originally come from?) The proof enough is that A)We know how fast light travels. B)We able to view light as far as billions of light years away, using modern technology. Therefore, it physically impossible for "religious scholars" to say the universe was created at the same time they say man was created. This is pretty plain an simple. (On another side note, the Bible does NOT teach that these two incidents happened at the same time, but that is a discussion for another time.) However this is the number one ammunition that evolutionists will throw back, the fact that we KNOW for the universe is, at the very least, MUCH MUCH MUCH older than man. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of man. In fact, when you throw that aside, you'll see that the timetable for the origins of "modern" man and civilization in the scientific community, and the timetable for the origins of man and civilization in the bible are actually pretty close (considering the scope of history).

I guess my point is, I don't want your evolutionist religion. I wish that people would wake up and see it for what it is...the new, modern, secular religion of Science. How bout this to chew on. Thousands of years ago, primitive man sacrificed children to their gods by literally ripping the children right our of their pregnant mothers, and then sacrificing the fetus on their alter to their god in the hopes that they would bring them health and prosperity, or some other nonsense. Today, modern man sacrifices their children to their new "god", by literally ripping the children right out of their pregnant mothers (abortion), and then sacrificing the fetus on the great altar of science and knowledge in the hopes that it will bring them health and prosperity (fetal stem cell research). Wow, we really have come a long way haven't we. But we haven't really changed much either, have we. I'm sure at least a hundred of you that just read this last paragraph are now FURIOUS that I would even DARE bring up such concepts as abortion and stem cell research. Well, I just must be Pat Roberson himself (ouch). Get real guys. Any unbiased scientist should be able to look at the above comparison and see the similarities. It is FACT that people used to sacrifice their children in such a way. It is also FACT that people do the SAME thing today, but for different reasons. You can't deny this fact. This is what science is all about... Facts, right?

This is not an attack on science, by any means. Science didn't do it. Peoples application of it did. Believe me, I'm the first one to stand in awe at the wonders of modern technology, and the great and wonderful things that science has brought us through our expansion of knowledge. People are killed in car wrecks every day, but it doesn't make all cars "deadly weapons". All cars could however be used as such. It is important to be wary of any sort of all-inclusive notion.

My final point is that, evolution is just as much a religion as anything else, and at the same time, intelligent design is as much a science as evolution. To just throw out one idea and blindly accept another is living proof that the scientific community is, in fact, very biased, and that as usual, man will create for himself whatever he wants to try and feed his own selfishness and desire to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and however he wants.

Good luck guys, I hope it works out for ya.

Dion Staton

As to the question at hand, Is Intelligent Design science or philosophy? I have a degree in philosophy and a dregee in religion. I also have two degrees in computer science.
And the very idea that a philosophy has no place in the science class room is lunacy.
Science must have a philosophical basis or it is irrational.
Intelligent design differs from "modern science" in one way and one way only.
The difference lies in the philosopical outlook or assumptions made in the beginning.
"Modern science" assumes philosopically that there is only nature and matter at work in the hypothesis.
Intelligent design assumes that there may be more than those two at work in any hypothesis.
Each camp uses and verifies data by the exact same method.
And that method, by the way, has a philosophical basis or assumptions from which it is drawn.
To throw out either simply because you don't like it, or you have assumed you know more about it than you do, or because one is associated with this religion or that religion, is completely stupid.
If there is to be meaningful discussion of the two positions, then both sides must agree on a set of philosophical assumptions that have equal meaning in both views.
Otherwise you are like a Russian language speaking person arguing with an English language speaking person, each in their own language and both unable to comprehend the language of the other.
And what do have in such a situatiion?

NOISE, without meaning or significance.

So let philosopy be except where you have some inkling of what your talking about.
And let people who do know what they are talking about speak with respect to each other.
The childish name calling and stereo-typing being practiced by persons on both sides of the argument remind me of playground antics like "my dad can bet up you dad".
What a load of crap!
(excuse the vulgar useage of slang)


The major hurdle here is exactly what constitutes a ‘theory’. In science, the word ‘theory’ is very strictly defined. We often hear someone say, “I have a theory about that” when, in fact, what they really have is a ‘hypothesis’ – a guess or a hunch. I suspect that more colloquial usage is what leads people to think that that a theory is tantamount to an opinion and is, therefore, subject to individual interpretation.

The scientific method is, essentially, a recipe for generating theories. In its simplest form, it goes something like this: (1) See some stuff. (2) See some more stuff. (3) Think about all of the stuff that you saw. (4) Say, “Hmmmm… I think that I’ve seen something like this before” – i.e.: identify a suspected pattern. Call this a HYPOTHESIS. (5) Devise an experiment – essentially, subject yourself to observing lots more stuff like the sort of stuff that caused you to make the guess in the first place - intended to prove or disprove your hypothesis. (6) If your guess still looks good, form a statement (equation, law, rule, etc.) that summarizes the pattern. The rule should be sufficiently robust that it predicts the outcomes of other similar stuff. (7) If you’re still convinced, submit the results for peer review. (8) Peers then go out and observe the same stuff – that is, recreate the experiment – and see if they get the same result. (9) If the rule stands up to the prodding of the peer community, then it becomes a theory. Newton’s Laws are the result of just such a process. He saw some stuff (purportedly, a falling apple), saw some more stuff (the moon moving around the earth), suspected that their motions had something in common (a pattern), and subsequently found a set of rules that predicts the outcome of similar events that is now known as the Theory of Gravitation.

Note that gravity is not subject to opinions. We all know that when you lose your grip on a heavy toolbox, it’s going to fall toward the ground. (Newton’s ‘theories’ also predict the amount of force that will be applied to your foot if it happens to be in the way of the toolbox in its attempt to reach the ground.) Try heading over to your local airport and explaining to passengers arriving from out-of-town that the Theory of Flight is not a fact and that they did not actually fly at all. After all - it’s just a theory. Even if something is held to be truth by a majority - like the old “10 million people can’t be wrong” assertion - that doesn’t guarantee its truth value. A good example is the direction that water will swirl in a toilet (sink, etc.) in the North and South Hemispheres. My guess (uh, hypothesis) is that at least 10 million people have got that one wrong. (Go to www.snopes.com and check it out.)

Creationism/ID has been subjected to no such scrutiny. There is no body of observed evidence that logically leads to the conclusion. That doesn’t mean that it’s UNTRUE, it merely disqualifies it from attaining scientific theoryhood. On the other hand, many have observed and re-observed the data and have determined that Darwin’s conclusions are, in fact, concordant with the pattern that is now referred to as the Theory of Evolution. That doesn’t mean that it’s the TRUTH, it merely means that, to date, no one has yet observed the same stuff and drawn a different conclusion with which most scientists agree. The point of all of this is to say that people are permitted to believe anything at all - the First Amendment of the Constitution affords them this right. I merely assert that it should not be taught in the classroom side-by-side with evolution as it would constitute bad science.

The purpose of teaching science is not to fill young peoples’ minds with facts but, rather, to empower them with tools, like the scientific method, that enable them to think for themselves and not be swayed by questionable evidence without drawing their own conclusions. If the children can think for themselves, they’ll draw their own conclusions. But maybe that is exactly what the IDers are afraid of…


I have found a very good website that answers every one of these topics. It is written by scientists with multiple degrees. They give answers that your average person can understand as well as alternate articles for those who like a more detailed in depth scientific paper on the topic. Here's the link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
Check it out!


I am a science teacher who is a Christian. I am also a consumate neophyte when it comes to science, and love to play with ideas. I love the mindset of philosophy, and attempt to apply many of the ideals I learned in college to my world.

All that said (to give you a background with which to judge me), I think this about our current debate over Intelligent Design:

Many people do _not_ understand what is actually being debated. Most of those who involve themselves in the argument are deficient in one way or another. At this point, you cannot take one side of the issue and believe that it will win out over the other side. I'll try to make my case using arguments from both sides.

Conventional scientists: These groups are educated in a carefully cultured social structure that seeks to build a reliable, solid foundation of Science that is complete and wholistic. They want to Understand the world around them in its entirety. There was a reason that Einstein was looking for the Grand Unified Theory -- in the end, scientists want to be able to explain it all.

Their world-view is like a pair of glasses that blocks ultra-violet rays. They argue that since we cannot observe ultra-violet rays directly, it does not diminish the ability of science to understand the world. By defining their world view as based around logic, they ignore the illogical basis of many of our thoughts. We are _not_ rational beings.

As far as we understand, people have a non-deterministic understanding of the world through our neural nets. The belief that our logic can decipher everything in the world is as steeped in the ideals of the Enlightenment as Intelligent Design is in the abosolute faith of religion.

The classical scientists can be ignorant of that which is innately human -- unswerving faith. They can be ignorant of faith even when they display an unswearving devotion to conventional scientific theories to the exclusion of all else.

In my belief where the classical scientists fail is that they assume the high ideal of a truly rational world-view is entirely unrational. For proof of this, read up on Godel's incompleteness theorem. If math iteself cannot be completely grounded, how can science (which relies on math for much of its proof)?

The problem with Intelligent Design is that many of their theories rely on presuppositions for how their ideas can be formulated. This is _not_ science. You cannot take your pet theory and jury-rig it to "fit" science. No matter how often, and how loudly Intelligent Design theorists claim that evolutionists presuppose a universe without a God, they miss the point that sciece cannot become a part of a religios (or philosophical debate).

In my opinion, many of the people who debate this issue in defence of Intelligent Design do so from a philosophical and not scientific understanding of the data. This does not mean that the understanding of conventional science is flawless -- it is actually riddled with holes. It does mean that many arguments of the Intelligent Design Theorists are unable to be used on the world-stage of Scientific Inquiry.

I agree with a previous post -- philosophy needs to arbitrate this argument, but it cannot decide it. Both sides have some merit, and in the end I believe Science will be best served when it tries to distance itself from philosophy. We cannot have science making Christians out of people, and we should not have science making atheists out of people either.


PiGuy, I think you have an open minded approach...at least the most open I have seen on either side of this debate in quite a while. I think there are irrational defenders on both sides of this issue and they do not help their 'cause'.

I believe ID, of sorts, is true (by faith and my perception) AND I think parts of evolution are true and other parts are not (see below). Also, ID and all parts of Evolution do not need be mutually exclusive for those who believe in God and the Bible...but that's for another discussion.

One item you may want to think about, that I found through my research, is the difference between Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution. Micro-Evol is true and is based in fact, just as Darwin explained (from dictionary.com 'Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies'). However, Darwin specifically did not show, and I have not seen elsewhere, any real evidence of Macro-Evol (from dictionary.com 'Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups').

Darwin made a non-scientific leap of faith (as many do today) to assume something along the line of “since Micro-Evol is true and demonstrated, then Macro-Evol must be true and the evidence will be found with future study” (not a real quote, but I think this is his basic conclusion). The problem is I have not seen that evidence. One example...where are the many millions of missing links of all the species here today or even extinct species? They HAVE to be here if Macro-Evol is true...and they should not be hard to find. I would think we would trip over them as easily as we find any other fossils, for every species.

If you use your ‘development of a theory’ model, which I agree with, Macro-Evol cannot be demonstrated as Micro-Evol was by your implication. I cannot scientifically explain how all of this happened (how we, or other species, got here today), but I have not seen anyone explain it correctly either. If someone can point me to the real evidence of Macro-Evol, I would like to see it.

And even if Macro-Evol is 100% true, we still have this nagging little problem of the whole Abiogenesis issue (from Dictionary.com 'The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter')...ID is at least an idea of how it might have happened. No solid scientific studies have shown Abiogenesis to be possible, including the amino acid tests a few decades ago.

As far as the classroom, don't teach ID in science class, but tell kids to keep an open mind until the sufficient facts are (or are not) in on the whole evolution thing. Maybe, just maybe, our kids may find out that we adults haven't figured it all out just yet...


"...the Waco Tribune-Herald reports several people walking out of his talk after he criticized a literal interpretation of the Bible"

Well too bad for Bill. At least they were honest about Bills' anti-Religion remarks. So, he does realize that Creation and Intelligent Design are, in a way, 2 different things. Right?

Creation, for an example; is like the recipe for, say, a Peanut-Butter and Jelly Sandwich.

Take 2 slices of bread, spread P.B. on one slice, and J. on the other, put both slices (PB side to J side) together.

I'm sure you needed that to be explained.

Whereas Intellegent Design would delve into how the bread was made and with what ingredients, the peanuts for PB: they were planted, harvested, shelled, crushed, etc. so-on and so-forth for all of the other ingredients and processes.

Yeah, I know ^that last remark might be able to be picked apart if you really get into the HOW. But for now lets keep it as simple for the sake of my example.

Creation(ism) is just a VERY bare-bones way of telling of how things came to be. God said "Let there be _______".

That, of course, is a very unscientific way of explaining.... well, anything. Creationism is purely FAITH. Believing in GOD also takes faith.

If Bill wants to attack/rebut *the theory of* Intellegent Design then that's fine. If he can explain why such and such theories and/or hypothesis'es that support Intelligent Design are unscientific then he will have my attention and respect.

But to go and essentially bash religion/faith... What's Bills' motive for that?

Oh wait. As a believer in ID I'd have to ask myself the same question. What if I were to bash evolution (or rather: those that believe in it)?

....Okay, I could give a very crude example of how life miraculously started, evolved into different things yadda yadda yadda and here we are today. That goes into the Origin of Life at it's very base. It can even go deeper than that actually. But for now....

Now we get back to the basis of Faith. Life being sparked into something, just as Life was sparked into Adam (being given the breath of life).

I remember reading a letter to USAToday that went something like: "I'm amazed that intelligent men and women in science labs are trying to create life from nothing to prove that (this is exactly what happened)..."

Think about ^that. That's not an EXACT quote, but it's close enough. The letter was questioning the validity of the theory of evolution.

As it has been said numerous times already; Both are BASED on faith. At each theories' BASE is a foundation of FAITH.

So the next question would be - Which is the better Science? Or which can disprove the other?

Bill? Any arguments you have would be greatly appreciated.

truebelievre- info taken from evolution of truth.com

In the 1100's, we still believed
that alchemy could turn lead into gold.

In the 1300's, we still believed
that the Earth was at the
center of the solar system.

In the 1800's, we still believed
that manned flight was impossible.

In the 1940's, we still believed
that nuclear radiation was harmless.

And today, we still believe that . . .

1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29 . . .

But what if the other intelligence we seek is way beyond our technology? What if we've got the wrong number?

Is there another sign we
should be paying attention to?
Take a line and divide it so that the ratio of the large piece (B) to the whole line (A) is the same as the ratio as the small piece (C) to the large piece (B):

So A is 161.8% of B and B is 161.8% of C.

The Greeks knew
this as the
Golden Section
The Renaissance artists
knew this as the
Divine Proportion

and used it for beauty
and balance in the
design of architecture

and used it for beauty
and balance in the
design of art

But there's something rather incredible about this proportion:
It was used to design you:
Your hands, face and body!
Simple coincidence? Natural phenomenon? Before you decide, consider this:

In the 12th century, Leonardo Fibonacci discovered an incredible mathematical relationship behind this seemingly simple proportion. It's based on a simple series of numbers, with each new number being the sum of the two before it.

0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89 . . .

The ratio of each number to the before it number converges on exactly the same number (1.61804...) as the Golden Section and Divine Proportion. But that is just the beginning to the mathematical mysteries of this number.There are many examples of the Divine Proportion / Golden Section found throughout the design of the universe and everything in it, but let's start with the most important thing first: You! We'll need a few Fibonacci building blocks:

Each line is phi, or 1.61804..., times longer than the one before it. (Conversely, a section drawn at 0.61804 (or 61.8%, 1 / phi) of each line equals the length of the one before it.)

Let's start with something simple. Take your hand off your keyboard or mouse and look at the proportions of your index finger.

Hold your hand up to the screen. Don't be shy!

Each section of your index finger, from the tip to the base of the wrist, is larger than the preceding one by about the Fibonacci ratio of 1.618, also fitting the Fibonacci numbers 2, 3, 5 and 8.
By this scale, your fingernail is 1 unit in length. Curiously enough, you also have 2 hands, each with 5 digits, and your 8 fingers are each comprised of 3 sections. All Fibonacci numbers! Is this simple coincidence or by design?

Your hand creates a golden section in relation to your arm, as the ratio of your forearm to your hand is also 1.618, the Divine Proportion.

The proportions of your face also show the same ratio. Beauty, in fact, seems to be defined by how closely facial features maintain the Divine Proportion.


This handiwork seems more than random in design.
Let's face it . . .

Click Here for Topics Signs of Intelligence Design in the Human Body Technology in Nature UNnatural Selection Other Side of Common Beliefs Seeking The Truth (Conclusion) "Life" In A Test Tube? Was Miller-Urey Reality? Life from Comets? "Life" on Mars? The Scientific Method Organs of Extreme Perfection Irreducible Complexity Given Enough Time ... Do You Feel Lucky? Evolution Or Selection? (Abio) Genesis 1:1 Real Examples of Evolution Who Made Grandma Hairy? The Evolution of Evolution The Rules of Design Letters received

In this section
Real Signs of Intelligence • Fibonacci Convergence • The Human Hand • The Human Face • The Human Body The human face abounds with examples of the Golden Section or Divine Proportion. We'll use our building blocks again to understand design in the face:

The head forms a golden rectangle with the eyes at its midpoint. The mouth and nose are each placed at golden sections of the distance between the eyes and the bottom of the chin. The beauty unfolds as you look further.


A Face of Divine Beauty
The blue line defines a perfect square of the pupils and outside corners of the mouth. The golden section of these four blue lines defines the nose, the tip of the nose, the inside of the nostrils, the two rises of the upper lip and the inner points of the ear. The blue line also defines the distance from the upper lip to the bottom of the chin.

The yellow line, a golden section of the blue line, defines the width of the nose, the distance between the eyes and eye brows and the distance from the pupils to the tip of the nose.

The green line, a golden section of the yellow line defines the width of the eye, the distance at the pupil from the eye lash to the eye brow and the distance between the nostrils.

The magenta line, a golden section of the green line, defines the distance from the upper lip to the bottom of the nose and several dimensions of the eye.
A Body of Divine Design
The white line is the body's height.

The blue line, a golden section of the white line, defines the distance from the head to the finger tips

The yellow line, a golden section of the blue line, defines the distance from the head to the navel and the elbows.

The green line, a golden section of the yellow line, defines the distance from the head to the pectorals and inside top of the arms, the width of the shoulders, the length of the forearm and the shin bone.

The magenta line, a golden section of the green line, defines the distance from the head to the base of the skull and the width of the abdomen. The sectioned portions of the magenta line determine the position of the nose and the hairline.

Although not shown, the golden section of the magenta line (also the short section of the green line) defines the width of the head and half the width of the chest and the hips.

Our Invention or His Creation?
Camera (lens, focus, iris, film) Eye (cornea curves to focus, iris, retina)
Microphone Ear drum
Amphitheatre shape Outer ear shape
Pump Heart
Valves Heart valves
Plumbing and hydraulic systems Circulatory system
Communication / telephone cables Spinal cord / nervous system
Ball joint Shoulder joint
Windshield wiper Eye lid
Wiper fluid Tears
Knife Incisor teeth
Mortar and pestle Molar teeth
Woodwinds Voice box
Computer / Electronic circuitry Brain
Computer program DNA
Bubble level Inner ear tubes for balance
Construction crane (jointed arm, scoop) Arm and hand
Honeycomb reinforcements Bee's honeycomb
Solar panel (energy from light) Leaf
Fish hook (reverse barb design) Bee stinger
Light stick (light from chemical reactions) Firefly
Airplanes (airfoil wings, hollow struts, tail) Birds (airfoil wings, hollow bones, tail)
Submarine ballast Fish (ballast bladder)
Sonar Bats, dolphins
Paper from wood pulp Wasp hives
Velcro Thistle burrs (actually inspired Velcro)
Blu-blocker sunglasses Orange oil in eagle eyes to improve acuity
Suction cups Octopus
Inboard propulsion (boats) Squid
Batteries (electricity from chemicals) Eel
Navigation by stars / magnetic fields Bird and butterfly migration
Music Song birds
Anesthetics Venoms and poisons
Swim fins, paddles Webbed feet (frogs, ducks)
Water cooled systems Sweat glands and perspiration
Core aeration for health of lawns Worms, insects and moles

In this section: In Memoriam of Life's Unfit • Unnatural Selection

To those that just didn't make the cut.


Evolution recognizes all the life forms whose adaptations led them to be the fittest and to survive, but forgets all the others whose adaptations just didn't make the cut.
Maybe we can't find their fossils, but we can still use reason and imagination to know they existed and express our gratitude for helping to make life what it is today.
Note: This page is dedicated to those with the advanced evolutionary adaptation of having a tongue in their cheek, and to those who can truly appreciate the incredible design and technology found in even the simplest things in life.

The Adaptation: In Memoriam:
To cope with the problem of excess blood pressure when bending over, giraffes have a network of very small elastic blood vessels to accommodate excess blood when the head is lowered. A highly specialized vessel near the brain acts as a sponge, slowly absorbing blood until the pressure warns the animal to lift its head before damage occurs. A unique system of valves that prevent backflow solves the problem of fluctuating venous pressure. To all those evolving giraffes who passed out and drowned while trying to get a drink of water and to those who couldn't reproduce because their mate always had a headache.
Cats have whiskers the same width as their bodies, allowing them to know if they will get stuck in small places before they enter. To all those evolving cats with undersized whiskers who got stuck escaping to small places and were devoured from behind.
Birds have highly sophisticated and efficient aerodynamic design in their wings, which, as demonstrated by man's early attempts to fly, is no easy feat to develop. To all those evolving bird-wanna-be reptiles who tried to fly but plunged to their deaths before their appendages had evolved into usable wings.
Sharks have highly developed senses enabling them to detect one part blood in one million parts of water, enabling them to find prey at great distances. To all those evolving sharks who went hungry because their nose for blood was only as good as Motorola's famous Six Sigma quality program - 3.4 parts per million.
Digestion required the evolution of a very delicate balance of acids and mucous linings in the stomach. To all those evolving creatures with too little mucous who digested their own stomachs and those with too little acid who couldn't digest their food to survive.
Many flowering plants have evolved symbiotic relationships with specific insects for cross pollenization in order to reproduce. To all those evolving flowering plants whose symbiotic insects didn't evolve soon enough to enable them to reproduce.
Reproduction in insects and mammals alike requires complementary and rather precisely compatible organs capable of "docking." To all those creatures whose over and under sized equipment proved once and for all by their inability to mate that size really does matter.
The non-believer looks at the evidence and sees a universe that clearly is the result of natural processes. The believer looks at the same evidence and sees a universe that clearly is the result of Intelligent design. Is it the evidence that leads us to our conclusions, or is it our beliefs about God that determine how we are able to see the evidence?

Does evolution explain the origin of life or is it just being used to rationalize a belief that life began without God, as our culture moves from freedom of religion to freedom from religion?

Is it possible that evolution theory is being used to make monkeys out of us in more ways than one? Take a look at both sides of this critical issue.

Click on the images below
for more information on each topic
One view says this: CLICK on images for details But there's more
to the picture:
Evolution explains the origin and diversity of life. There are compelling reasons to believe in Divine Creation, and no evidence to deny or disprove it.
Life is the result of a chance interaction of chemicals and lightning in the Earth's early atmosphere. The probability of life occurring on its own is so infinitesimally small that it would be treated as an impossibility in any other branch of science or math.
Given enough time, anything can happen. In some types of probabilities, an outcome must occur. In others there is no reason to assume anything will occur.
Evolution shows that life began on its own. Evolution is a process of change in LIVING organisms. Even if it's true, this provides no basis to conclude that INANIMATE matter turned into living organisms on its own, which is an entirely different process called abiogenesis.
Darwin's work explains the origin of species. Darwin himself admitted many shortcomings in his theory and assumed it would be supported by fossil evidence that still has yet to be found.
Miller and Urey created the beginnings of life in a laboratory in the 1950's. All they created were some basic amino acids, a building block of proteins. There was nothing even remotely close to DNA, a single cell or any life functions.
Life was discovered on Mars in 1996, adding to the evidence for life forming on its own. The "fossil bacteria" was at least 100 times smaller than the smallest bacteria on earth and contained a mixture of chemicals commonly found on meteorites.
Gould's thesis on shells proves natural selection. Stephen Wolfram, a pioneer in cellular automata, says Gould's thesis has mathematical errors and "that natural selection is not all that important."
Richard Dawkins' many books demonstrate that life is purely the result of chance and adaptation. Dawkins' writings have great appeal to atheists and those seeking for answers that deny God, but are filled with inconsistencies and incomplete conclusions.
Life evolved from the very simple to the highly complex. Even the simplest of life forms are highly sophisticated pieces of biological machinery whose origins we cannot explain.
The adaptation and natural selection prove evolution. Adaptation and natural selection prove "micro-evolution," small variations in existing features that may even already exist in the DNA. This does not prove "macro-evolution," the creation of new organs, species or orders.
Common features found in animals demonstrate common ancestry.
Common features can just as logically demonstrate a common Designer.
Early man had ape-like hair coverings, corroborating our descent from apes. Since bones are all we have in the fossil record, representations of tissue and hair appearance can be drawn to look like anything the artist wants you to believe.
Evolutionary transitions from early life forms to modern man, often shown in an "evolutionary tree," illustrate the gradual change from early life to modern man. The fossil record lacks evidence to explain all the orders and species that we find in life. A new theory called "punctuated equilibrium" was proposed to explain the lack of evidence, but the problem is thus that it too is unsupported by evidence.
Evolution explains the origin of life and is a scientific fact. Evolution is used by some to support an unprovable belief that life began on its own. It interprets the evidence we have in the only way possible to support that belief. It ignores opposing evidence. There have been instances of evidence being exaggerated, falsely interpreted and even fabricated. Evolution theory fails to investigate the alternate hypothesis that life didn't form on its own because Divine Creation is defined to be outside the bounds of science, even if it is the truth.

There is nothing wrong with holding beliefs that are based on faith rather than complete evidence. This is the nature of all religions.

When evolution is used to explain life's origin and assumes and unprovable position (or faith) that God did not create life, is it then still science or has it just stepped over the boundaries of science to become a humanist religion? If it's religion, why is it taught in our schools? If it's science, why don't we teach all that we know, and do not know, about the possibilities for life's origins and diversity with complete openness and honesty?

Thank you www.evolutionoftruth.com


Wow, this is the most interesting blog I have ever read.
I have always been a staunch supporter of the theory of evolution. One of my closest friends is a faithful supporter of creationism. We are both stubborn as hell and have never really come to any agreements. The problem is he has no idea what he is talking about and I only know a little. He has no idea what the scientific method is, or even what the two theories (ID & Evolution) are. Therefore he does't even know a valid argument when he hears one. He just repeats his beliefs. I'm just glad that not all supporters of ID are as stubbornly ignorant as he is. I enjoyed reading the arguments that I'm too stupid and he is too unreasonable to make. I especially want to thank sawyer and truebelievre for opening my eyes and educating me a little.


It may be design, but take the word intelligent out. That is a subjective word, that adds a superior feel to it. Superior to what? There is MUCH more that we DON't know, than what we THINK we do know. It could have been something that is relativally STUPID that designed us...!?

Douglas Scher

Try examing a Flagellum motor and if you conclude it isn't designed by a Creator, than you are an idiot. Evolutionary theory has been disproven so many times over that it can only be classified as a religion itself. Nature and billions of years can't create anything without the DNA that our Creator made in order to give instructions to every living thing how to replicate itself. "Natural Selection" or adaptation as I prefer to call it is programmed in to our DNA as a means to adapt, but is very limited. DNA researchers have proven that it is impossible for one type of animal to change into another type over time. It is clearly limited, i.e. birds have always been birds, humans have always been humans. It's funny how some of the worlds leading scientists have realized evolutionary theory to be false, yet other so called scientists refuse to acknowlege the facts and hold on to their disproven theory. It's simply fear. Fear to admit there is a GOD of some sort and fear that they'll have to answer to Him.
Seriously, a bacterial Flagellum motor is a self assembling nanomachine with fine switching capability, is comprised of 40 parts inluding a drive shaft, fluid circulating cooling fan, drive shaft, U-joint, rotors, stators, a bushing, a rotation switch regulator,etc. It can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm, and reverse direction within 1/4 of a rotation accellerating back to full speed within that 1/4 turn. It is the most sophisticated, efficient machine ever MADE and we didn't make, nor did nature. If you think evolutionary theory could make something like this, you are a religious zealot worshiping at the alter of an evolutionary fairytale. Darwin admitted he was wrong in his writings, why don't the rest of you.
Anyone with even the slightest intelligence and insight can clearly see we live in a universe that was designed.
Please at least copy and paste this link to Nanotechnology researchers network center of Japan, examine the models of the flagellum motor, and give it some thought. If I showed you an inboard boat motor, and told you it evolved, you'd know I was lying. When you look at this motor which is far more advanced, far more precise, and far smaller, and someone tells you it evolved, know that they are lying. http://www.nanonet.go.jp/english/mailmag/2004/011a.html

Douglas Scher

Oh yeah, Bill Nye is an idiot.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Return to the Blog Index

January 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

Customer Service
Copyright © 2005 Popular Science
A Time4 Media Company All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Index