Interesting. She's a Vancouverite sticking up for Toronto and dissing her neighbouring province. It takes all kinds.

It's amazing how tolerant a liberal becomes of your opinion when they are shown how wrong they are.

I think we should have a special division in the Armed Forces for Spurned Liberals, just point them at the Taliban and say they to them they don't agree with you - the Afgani legal system would be clogged with complaints.

Actually, one can reasonably argue that the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Alberta, is now academically superior to the University of Toronto. As Sir Wilfrid Laurier once said, "Experience has established that institutions, which at the outset were useful, often end by becoming intolerable abuses owing to the simple fact that everything around them has changed [...] and they have not."

We must be careful to allow only sanctioned thought to be promulgated at our universities, lest there be curiosity, reasoning, intellectual challenge, or (gasp) discovery.

I admire her virtuous tolerance.

I wonder if the author knows that the THEORY of evolution is called a THEORY for a reason. On the surface Darwinianism seems to offer a sound basis upon which we can build a stable society. Yet, rooted as it is in the modernist mindset of the nineteenth century, it has wrought great evil when used as an excuse for genocides and the practice of eugenics. Of course what the author also fails to realize is that the only thing that keeps her from accepting Creationism instead of Evolution is her own bigotry. Creation is just as valid an explanation for diversity and similarity of living beings as evolution. Since none of us were present at the moment of creation not one of us can definitively state that this or that is correct. Based on my experience and interaction with the Creator I say that creation makes more sense than evolution. Someone else who has never experienced the Creator would probably think that evolution makes more sense but that is where tolerant intelligent people can agree to disagree.

BTW Does the author know she is bigoted as shown when she slanders Albertans, rural people in general, and Christians?

Not that the author will know it or care but my bigotry tells me that if I wanted to give Canada and enema, Toronto is where I would insert the nozzle, and I’m sure that if I inserted the nozzle far enough I would hit U of T and buried deep within that fetid pile in a homogeneous state I would, if I cared to look, find the author.

Sorry for the ugly imagery but this kind of twaddle coming from some self proclaimed intellectual deserves as good as it gives.

Theology is a waste of intellectual effort anyhow, so I personally couldn't give a rat's ass what they teach in it.

As for the comment about U of A, I'm not sure exactly what is meant by 'academically superior'. U of T outranks all the universities in Canada in research dollars and outweighs (by far) the output of U of A in that respect. U of A is admittedly a member of the group of thirteen, but it receives half the endowment (at least) and has half the endowment per student.

Joe:

I daresay you don't have a clue about evolution. It does not pretend to be a theory upon which you build a 'stable society'. Also, a theory is actually a more encompassing notion than a 'fact': a theory explains a large number of facts in a compact form.

If your only hope is to trot out the "it's called a theory for a reason" line, then I'm here to tell you that it doesn't hold water.

Check out Ken Miller's lecture on YouTube. He was a witness at the Dover trial; he's a Catholic and an evolutionary biologist. Watch the video and he'll clear some of it up for you.

Anon, you're an idiot.

Theology is no more a waste of intellectual effort as is psychology . . . and it has a much broader appeal and historical relevance.

Whether it has (or deserves) a commercial application is another argument. My particular view point is that if it isn't hard science, it has no place in University . . . but then that's just you and me.

Cheers,
lance

Yes, if we get any more LIEberal 'tolerance' it will be the death of us.

Universities are institutions for "FREE THOUGHT" and places of "INTELLECTUAL DISCOVERY".

Thus a priori this wonderful individual dismisses outright a line of inquiry because it doesn't fit their preconceived ontology.

In other words parrot the deconstructionist mantra because everything but the 'unrepentant hippie view' is false.

No hint of arrogance there.

And of course the usual Toronto is the center of the universe while Alberta is the stereotypical 'redneck' capital of the world.

Pretty inclusive mentality there, yesiree!

Shucks, lady, you be speakin badness 'bout my alma mater, PU. Me and baby Oinkz 'bout had enuff a yer rainpuddle pen-drippin. I'd tell yall to xpect a lettur from our aturney, soonaz he dun schoolin... but as one who puts much discernment into his wordcrafting, I hold that it would be more sensible to apply the ink to the drawing of a funny little mustache on your visage.

Teehee!

Anon:
I hope you don't get too bent out of shape but evolution is still a theory not a proven fact. If you choose to read all the evidence from one perspective you can infer that evolution gives answers. But if you choose to give creationism an honest exploration you will find it answers far more and is more in accord with other scientific disciplines than is evolution.

The biggest problem people have with creationism is they summon the imagery of God the medieval Catholic Church perpetrated which presents God in the image of man. Please open your mind imagine God who names Himself I AM. This statement is the beginning of our understanding of Him. I AM whose very being is existence chose to share His existence. With whom shall He share? He begins by bringing into existence all that exists. Then He begins to bring order out of chaos, separating light from dark, wet from dry etc. Into this creation He begins to share another quality of Himself and that is life. From viruses to redwoods, from single celled animals to the blue whale he brought life to His creation. Finally He determined that He would make Man in His own image. The Bible in its opening chapters gives us an understanding of the Nature of God being comprised of three attributes. Yahweh (I AM) has three attributes He has Will, He has Reason, and He has Presence. From His Will sprang His Reason and in His Presence He made everything that exists. Nothing exists outside of Him and nothing exists apart from Him. The universe and everything in it is a physical manifestation of His Presence without containing or limiting His Presence to mere physicality. Gaia worshippers come close to the truth except their god is limited to the physical. Yahweh is beyond space and time as advanced mathematics shows. A theory in advanced mathematics indicates that at the moment of the big bang 7 dimensions disappeared. Yet Yahweh is ever present as indicated by advanced physics which has discovered that empty space is not empty but rather is full of energy that is energy bubbling into matter dissolving into energy instantaneously. Given the Will and the Reason that all pervasive energy becomes matter or else remains as energy. That matter may be in the form of a blazing sun, a planet, a moon. That matter may be infused with life. That life may be made in the image of Yahweh possessing will, reason and presence. Should that life possess these three that life can become eternal by ceding to the Will, Reason and Presence that created it in the first place.

Theology, creationist biology, advanced mathematics and advanced physics point in the same direction. Evolutionary biology points in another direction which shall you choose?

Or not.

The fact that this universe exhibits an astonishing degree of apparent design is obvious to anyone with eyes to see. It's the implications of intelligent design that bother people. Many prefer to believe that life is unintended, undesigned, unplanned, and without ultimate purpose or meaning rather than run the risk of following the implications of design.

Of course, the downside of ridiculing intelligent design is that if there wasn't any, the brains of ID deniers are undesigned; they are the results of mindless, undirected material processes and we should have no reason to trust anything that comes out of them.

Atheists like to have their cake and eat it too. They want to deny God's existence so they can control their own lives, but they also want to believe that their lives have meaning and that they have value and worth as human beings beyond that of a slug, for example. They also uniformly believe in reason, logic, and rational thought -- none of which make sense if the universe is purely materialistic and there is no design behind our brains.

Also, without God, there is no ultimate right or wrong, good or evil -- there's just molecules self-organizing and, sometimes, colliding with one another. In a purely material, unintended universe smashing a baby's head is of no more consequence than smashing a rock -- both are, ultimately, nothing more than assembled atoms. But something inside a human being greatly resists this idea, and if and when a psychopath comes along we generally view him or her as a defective human being. But, if we are undesigned, how can some of us be considered defective? One version is as good as another.

The idea that there is no ultimate good and evil is another concession that atheists are often unwilling to make, although some, pressed by the logic of their materialistic position, will posit that there is no such thing.

Belief in intelligent design is a credible intellectual position to hold; it is a credible answer to all the facts of life before us; it is atheism that is rife with inconsistencies and improbabilities.

That too.

All religion is like the institution in the Laurier quote given to us above by Vitruvius.

There should certainly be room for a course in Intelligent Design at the U of T. As there should for Ptolemaic astrophysics or Leschenko genetics or Marxist economics. There is a lot to be learned from failed ideas and the faith they inspire.

The point of universities is not to teach what is true but rather recognize that truth is provisional. A best estimate this week.

Our current global warming orthodoxy needs the steady application of skepticism and empiricism it gets at this site and many others. In twenty years I suspect it will have the same punctured status as ID/geocentrism/instant adaptation/class consciousness: a faith which failed.

But failed faiths are not uninteresting. Why were certain sects of Christians so desperate to disprove Darwin? Why were so many people so eager to sort their garbage and pray to St. Algore?

These are excellent questions for sociologists - hard scientists will get on with their work.

I rank ID right up there with global warming theory or the flat earth society. Science has proven through countless years of diligent research that life evolved on this planet to its present form. I am not anti-religion by any means, but to suggest otherwise is just beyond the pale. If you choose to believe that God exists, ok fine, that is your 'personal' belief and you are free to pursue that avenue of spirituality to its fullest and make of it what you will. But suggesting ID and science are even in the same ball park is just ludicrous or even worse delusional.

As for this princess, if she is an accurate representation of a U of T graduate, then they are a sad excuse for a university.

christian faith has given us the law and morals that we live with today. i don't think there is much wrong with that. if anyone can prove how the universe came to be that would be nice.

As science is a search for understanding, its conclusions can only be tentative as it awaits new information. In science, a theory is as good as it gets.

This is unlike creationism/ID which assumes an answer without evidence and closes its mind to any new information. In creationism/ID, there is no thinking whatsoever.

OH for the day when christians become non christians,through a bit of research, and start thinking for themselves.I mean old timers moved ahead from Eatons catalog in the outhouse.

The self righeous angst of the "unrepentant old hippie" is just plain stupid.

ID is a croc. Duh. I no more believe in intelligent design than in Santa Claus or the Great Pumpkin.

But what's wrong with a 6 evening lecture dog-and-pony show asking some some questions, and giving some pause for thought. I see this course as entertainment, not serious scientific thinking.

Just to be clear, Ron, I didn't say that "religion is like the institution in the Laurier quote". I said that the U of T may be pushing its luck in that regard.

Look, I think that science should be taught in science class, theology should be taught in theology class, music should be taught in music class, &c. At the end of the day, caveat emptor secus emptor culpa.

They are all part of the human learning experience. If you look closely, you will also note that they have different axiological value functions. I would no more have a student not study comparative religion than I would have them not study song.

Because, let's face it, they're all a part of the ultimate goal of humanity: engineering.

I don't believe ID V Evolution is the point lance is trying to get across with his posting of the link to this "old hippie"

That fact of the matter remains, if you don't agree with a leftist, you are the one who is intolerant, not they. You are probably some country bumpkin, religious nut who says praise Jesus at the end of every sentence.

Truthfully though, it is they who are a bunch of intolerant, foul mouthed bigots. Look deeply into their eyes and you will see spoiled children who have never grown up.

Pigfucker U, before I even read the article I immediatly thought of toronto, the name fit, Hog Town.

I'm sorry,
I can't pig fuck her ewe,
I'm the wrong species on both counts.

And besides, I don't even know her.

PFU from an Alberta backwater eh?

Kate this is less a tolerance issue as it is a Lib-left core personality disorder.

Statements like this betray the self centered elitism and inbred ignorance and genetic hubris of the dogmatic Liberal...it is just one genetic trait that has spawned this universal truism:

"Liberalism is a mental disorder"

I don't see why any university at the public traugh is teaching any religon. That's about the extent of my agreement with her.
Then as to be expected Joe weighs in from the other far side.
The statement by Old White Guy "christian faith has given us the law and morals that we live with today" is the kind of bunk that is driving people away from religon. In fact what the christion religon has done is borrow good ideas and then claim them as their very own.
Keep in mind Joe that the bible(s) old/new/rewriten/redesigned are basically poorly writen novels that have had an excelent sales job.

I'm a bit of an old fart so maybe I'm missing something in this little debate. I don't know exactly what is proposed in ID beyond the basic English meaning of the two words, but it does seem to me that Darwinian evolutionary theory is a pretty good example of an "intellgent design". Is there more? Cheers. Eric

@Jay, 3.36am “The point of universities is not to teach what is true but rather recognize that truth is provisional.”

I see kool-aid is replacing ale again...

The purpose of a university is (ideally) to teach its students how to think. This means that its faculty ought to practice what they preach.

BTW: "Unrepentant old Hippie" can snipe at Alberta culture from the cover of net anonymity and 800 miles of distance.

But it is nice to know that when in Alberta culture someone as ill-mannered, boorish and condescending as this 60s hag would probably have some speed bumps installed in its mouth, free of charge, by some self respecting Albertan with a esteem for polite society.

At least the "Alberta backwater" has a culture where vulgar obnoxious people and pathalogical arrogance are shunned...I see these two deep personality flaws are the basis for west coast pseudo-noetic cults.

If you find ID more objectionable than skank hippies with attitudes who vote to raise your taxes then you might be a closet Liberal sockpuppet.

For those unable to communicate with the less intelligent, please use the following template to fit right in:

"Anyone who (choose 'believes' or 'doesn't believe'...) in (...insert topic here...) is obviously deluded and mentally deficient. I mean, come on, get a clue. This is just the product of (...insert pet peeve here...) and (...insert boogeyman here...). Why, oh why, can't the rest of the world be as intelligent and tolerant as I?"

There you go folks...now the intelligent folks can play this game, too.

By the way, I think that the above applies to the unrepentant hippie as well as several of the commenters on this thread. I welcome intelligent debate but detest name-calling and taunting...improve your debating skills, please.

Intelligent Design is looking at the pock marked surface of the moon and realizing that life on earth is simply a matter of the luck of the draw.

And sooner or later, the dice are going to roll against us.

Religion or no religion.

At the end of the Permian geological period 96% of all life on earth was wiped out, inclduing all mammels over 20 lbs.

So where do pigs come from?

Obviously, pigs come from pig fuckers.
Why is this so difficult to understand?

First off,
Are you all retarded? Somehow you've managed to assume that some hippie from Vancouver Island represents the view of the liberal-left. Typical attitude of a lefty you say, maybe your prejudice is typical practice for a righty.

Secondly,
Joe, please stop. For the love of the sweet holy zombie Jesus, please stop. "Evolution is just a theory, that's why it's called the theory of evolution" is like saying "the ministry of truth speaks the truth" or "Da proof is da proof". Evolution is not some hippie pseudoscience. It is a profound discovery about the nature of life on earth. By strictly adhering to the scientific method, scientists (of which I assume or pray that you are not) are able to judge their assumptions by observation of the world, and, unlike religion are able to reiterate as they close further on absolute irrefutable fact.

So,
That old hippie is obviously a left wing ideologue, she supports SOW and would probably march in a parade against eating food if GWBush said eating was good. Instead of critiquing her arguments, you've made her the spokeswoman of the Liberal/NDP alliance.

ID can be taught in schools, so can evolution. We need to teach our children the cognitive skills that are so lacking in our friends like Joe and this old hippie. It just happens that they lack these skills on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum.

Given that half of the commenters here agree with you, Jon, obviously they aren't all retarded, else you are too.

Ha Ha! Someone said LIEberal!
Never stops being funny, no matter how many hundreds of times people use it!
Many SDA posters prove that humansd are not terribly far removed from the rest of the primate family.

Vit,

Sorry I deleted the first paragraph to my post and that was left over. I am retarded at proof reading, the same way that someone who actually believes ID is retarded at life.

No, Jon, they are not "retarded",
independent of whether or not
I agree with them on this topic.
Beware hubris, my son.

"I am retarded at proof reading, the same way that someone who actually believes ID is retarded at life."

And people say I act like a 12 year old.

Jon, Dalton McGuinty was just re-elected by people like you, people who think Jesus is a significantly bigger election issue than taxes in the year 2007. I could not possibly have less respect for you or your opinions and I think you should find another website to troll, one more appropriate for your age.

You have no respect for him, Andrew, and yet you've only heard one of his opinions. Sure, that one was at best dubiously expressed, still, seems rather narrow-minded to me.

Western Canadian at October 20, 2007 8:13 AM and Vitruvius at October 20, 2007 8:40 AM, thanks for a couple of great laughs!!

Have any of you noticed how the advocates of ID gleefully latch on to any new scientifically based correction or new perspective on the multifacited theory of evolution and promote it as proof that the theory is wrong, in other words accepting the fruits of the scientific method as valid. While at the same time, these same folks do not ever submit their own ideology to any critical method of scrutiny. Apparently, science can be used to "disprove" the other guys, but don't you dare suggest that the postulations of ID or Creationism be subjected to the same rigors. I wonder if they've ever even noticed the hypocricy of that position.

Now, for my own take on the science versus religion thing. I don't think they are incompatible at all. Most of the avowed atheists who declare there is no God, have based their conception of what "God" is on the Judeao-Christian version of it, allowing, as well for the same treatment and rejection of other gods created by humankind. The thing is, whether or not a creative being or force exists is not dependent on any feeble conception mere humans might have come up with. Just because they have understood the various human created mythological conceptions and under scientific scrutiny have found them lacking doesn't mean they have proven that a god does not exist. Therefore to triumphantly declare the non-existance of such a force is a bit hypocritical. The arrogance that accompanies the triumphal stance is unbecoming of a scientist, who, by definition, should always be open minded and always maintaining a sliver of doubt.

I would prefer a science that admits that the big bang theory, while it may be correct, cannot explain who or what caused the big bang and how such a staggeringly spectacular event could just happen without time and some physical manifestation preceeding it. Infinity has to extend both ways - into the past and into the future - and that is a concept that I suspect no human can get their head around. That is the mysterious realm where I think God is present. By comparison, the petty bickering and oneupsmanship of the creationism versus evolution debate is like a kindergarten brawl.

"You have no respect for him, Andrew, and yet you've only heard one of his opinions. "

An outright fabrication, he's commented here and elsewhere before and has a link to his site. He's established a pattern as a Christian hater at several blog sites.

In the future I'd prefer you advocate cutting my taxes instead of backtalking me, a known fiscal conservative trying to make your country better.

Vit,

You alluded earlier to being an engineer. I was wondering (as a young engineer myself) how you correlate your belief with fact?

Can you with any confidence tell me that a soil is competent to build on without testing? Hopefully your answer is no. The reason why science is science and faith is faith is because in science, everyone is skeptical of everything, whereas in faith, one must not be skeptical, but just to believe.

When people post stuff saying that those who do not see the intelligent design are not opening their eyes, it makes me sad. The human brain, in all of its holy glory, has evolved because of the stresses and pressures that billions of years of history has put on its predecessors.

The only water, IMHO, that creationism (or ID by any other name) holds is based on a single question. How did inanimate objects become animate beings?

The fortunate criterion of the truth is that it works no matter who it inconveniences. Science does not exist to create a stable society, neither does freedom.

ID is the pseudoscientific face of belief, which is incongruent with science.

Andrew,

People like me sit on CPC boards of directors. People like me are making the electricity you use in your life. People like me will keep you from dying before you are 80.

You deserve to have more respect for people like me.

Sounds like a tad of inbreeding going on here !

Andrew,

A Christian hater? Maybe a Christian mocker, but only when your stupid ideas are worthy of mockery.

The theory of Intelligent Design logically necessarily includes the concept of an Intelligent Designer. (aka the Deity, aka God.)

Regarding that, here's what George Gallup, mathematician and statistician founder of Gallup polling organization, had to say: "I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone-the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity." (from "The Reason Why" by RA Laidlaw.)

Perhaps Ms. Vancouver could ponder that quote and offer a logical counter...but I doubt it.

Oh, and I think religion is a perfectly fine and absolutely fascinating topic for teaching at universities. This is another problem I've noticed a lot of avowed atheists have. They seem to think that the teaching of religion has to mean ramming dogma down one's throat. Well sorry, folks. The religious studies classes offered in most universities are no different than any social science or humanities discipline. They are a critical examination of the history of ideas and the marvelous variety and complexity of the creations of the human mind. Great stuff as far as I'm concerned.

As a bonus, you get to learn all kinds of deep and profound lessons about life from a whole variety of perspectives. Any religious studies department will offer courses on all of the world's major belief systems. This Christianity-centric antagonism is just plain ignorant prejudice.

Who is this nasty, cussing ignoramus who is ranting about limiting freedom of expression in Canada?

You'd think unrepentant old [smelly] hippie would understand that because, in his own words, "the University of Toronto is the top, the most world-class, university in Canada, hands down," they'd be defenders of an individual's freedom to express their views.

Given that Intelligent Design is very much in the forefront of scientific debate these days, why wouldn't a top-notch university engage an articulate advocate for this position? Denyse O'Leary is eminently capable of teaching the main components of this approach to biology because of her interest in, and writing on, ID over the years.

Contrary to smelly old unrepentant hippie's intolerant views, Judeo-Christian viewpoints are relevant to this discussion and certainly should have a place in academe. I'd like to commend the University of Toronto for their intelligent, tolerant, and open attitude towards freedom of expression.

I'd also like to suggest to this smelly old hippie that he heigh himself off to a nunnery or a convent to become either acqainted or reacquainted with the Creator of Heaven and Earth or that he, poste-haste, go to confession in a Christian Church of his choice.

It would do him a lot of good, and might relieve us of his intolerant, ignorant, closed-minded, uninformed, and tiresome views.

Well, I can only speak for myself, Louise & Jo, but I'm not an a-theist (the concept of which is ludicrous, considering the Greek root of the word), though I am an a-deist. But I could be wrong. After all, I've been wrong before. I remember once in '64...

Science and religion are not fundamentally incompatible, indeed, they are fundamentally orthogonal. They operate in different parts of the brain. Carl Sagan noted that: "There is no necessary conflict between science and religion. On one level, they share similar and consonant goals, and each needs the other".

In his Regensburg Lecture, Pope Benedict noted that: "Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought: to philosophy and theology".

Personally, I think there's only one axiom, existence exists. After that, you play the hand your dealt. Yet I think that Intelligent Design is less likely than random equilibrium-seeking self-organization (on the grand semiotic scale), though it my just be that that makes more sense to me. Others find that unsatisfactory, and so they see things other ways.

Those aren't problems. The problem is when people mix them up. Look, the science stuff operates at the epistemological level, and the religion stuff operates at the theological level, and from the human experience, they both affect metaphysics.

To deny it is just to be belligerent.

Whoops, the smelly old hippie is a she...'couldn't tell by the photo...'looked like a guy...

A few thoughts of my own on this: if evolution stands up as a theory for our existence, then, as a Christian, I’d be quite comfortable: IMO, if it’s true, it’s God’s plan and so OK with me. The problem, it seems to me, however, is that the theory of evolution, like global warming, has huge gaps in it. Neither is proven, though both are altars at which many worship.

I’ve gone to Denyse O’Leary’s website. She says: “David Warren of the Ottawa Citizen is another Canadian journalist who, having travelled and read widely, is skeptical of Darwinism. I sometimes publish some of his musings on the subject, often in correspondence with other thoughtful people:

“Warren, a Catholic, quotes George Sim Johnston, ‘Did Darwin Get It Right? Catholics & the Theory of Evolution’, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1998, pp. 22-24.”

David Warren says:

“Now, it may be argued that Darwin's hostility toward Christianity is beside the point. Shouldn't a scientific theory be judged on its own merits, rather than on the motives and psychology of its progenitor? Yes, of course - if the theory is truly scientific and confirmed by empirical observation. Isaac Newton was as strange as they come; as John Maynard Keynes pointed out, Newton's private philosophical notebooks make one think of an ancient Babylonian magician. But Newton's scientific theories were rigorously formulated. They can be tested and shown to be true for most of material reality. But an ideology dressed up as science is a different matter. Theories like Darwinism, Marxism, and Freudianism have an explanation for everything (natural selection, economic repression, the unconscious) and so finally explain very little; they are elastic and vague enough to absorb almost any contradiction; when they run into falsifying data, they simply mutate. And since these theories began, consciously or not, as highly skewed readings of the available evidence, the biographies of their founders are very much to the point.

“It is the job of a scientist to explain things without reference to a Creator. Great scientists like Gregor Mendel, who deciphered the genetic basis of heredity, operate this way, and when evaluating Mendel's work, we don't need to know what he thought about God. His rigorous mathematical analysis of his breeding experiments with peas can be tested and verified on its own terms. Mendel happened to be an Augustinian monk, but it makes no difference. A Christian physicist or biologist who runs into an intractable problem is not obliged to throw up his arms and say, "Well, God did it that way." Rather, he waits patiently for a natural explanation. If such is not forthcoming, he admits a scientific mystery and humbly hands over his data to philosophers and theologians, who may then talk about design and creation.

“At the same time, a scientist who takes the (often covert) position, that because there is no God, any puzzling phenomenon can in principle be explained entirely by material causes is also out of bounds. As is the case with a Christian physicist who solves any mystery in nature by simply positing divine intervention, scientists who adopt this strategy are practicing bad philosophy rather than sound science. Many Darwinists take the position that because other material explanations (for example, Lamarkism; the inheritance of acquired characteristics) of evolution are false, Darwin's must be true. But they can only do this if they rule out of court nonmaterial first causes. As scientists, they are not qualified to do this. Science, which deals only with physical reality, can have nothing to say about what, if anything, is outside that reality.

“...Twenty years before the publication of the Origin, Darwin was a convinced materialist who wished to rid nature of a Creator. In other words, his agenda was not strictly scientific; it was metaphysical - or, we might say, counter-metaphysical. Darwin's materialism was antecedent to, and not a result of, his scientific work. Even so, his philosophical biases would not be an issue if his theorizing had, like Mendel's or Pasteur's, been limited to secondary and proximate causes. But Darwin was stalking the First Cause. It was, he confessed in a letter, like committing "murder." And this agenda must be taken into account when judging the argument of the Origin, because virtually every chapter of that book contains hidden and unwarranted philosophical assumptions.”

O’Leary: “Warren also draws my attention to Governor Huckabee fielding a line drive from Darwinists.

“Quoting a friend on the ‘random’ part of ‘random mutations’, he notes”:

“Huxley in his presentation of Darwin makes a very critical point. He says that ‘random’ means a mutation in the offspring that we observers could not have predicted from looking at the parents. In short, it means ‘unexpected’ and ‘surprising,’ and it is defined purely and strictly in respect of human observers. Huxley's definition, in other words, has zero metaphysical or theological implications. From the mere fact that we human observers cannot predict an event, it is absurd to conclude that the event does not follow a regular pattern. Early human beings could not predict eclipses--so they appeared to happen at random. Yet this did not mean that eclipses did not follow a regular and predictable pattern. For Huxley, ‘random’ simply referred to the limits of our knowledge; it did not mean that the course of evolution was itself random. The course of evolution could be the unfolding of an intelligent design or it could the result of a cosmic law of progress.

“It is simply bad logic to jump from the Darwin/Huxley concept of random to conclusion that the process of evolution is itself random. People today forget the fact that those who embraced Darwin's theory in the 19th century saw it as scientific proof that progress was built into the universe--after all, if evolution led from microbes to Michelangelo, then who could possibly fail to see that the universe was constantly progressing, and not simply drifting randomly and without direction.”

Denyse O’Leary has also co-authored a very recent book called, “The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul”. The evolution-as-fact literature, written by Darwin acolytes is everywhere. That doesn’t mean it’s right. Healthy scepticism is a good thing. (How come that’s OK, apparently, for everyone except those who question Darwinism?) But that means being INFORMED. Sceptics of ID should actually be pleased that the U of T is willing to allow more than one card on the table: isn’t that in keeping with valid inquiry and scientific method?

I find the virulent anti-Christian sentiments of the blog quoted at the top of this thread—though I’m fully in favour of Kate exposing us to such bigoted bilge: it’s good to know what one’s opponents are thinking—and in some of the intolerant and bigoted comments here most disturbing. Narrow minded, nasty, insulting comments from the “anti-religionists”—altogether failing to discern the faith required to fall whole hog for Darwinism—are unwelcome and undignified, and tell far more about the pathologies of the writers than the mindset of those with whom they apparently disagree. If the Darwinist acolytes’ zeal were not religious in nature—I BELIEVE it to be true—why are they so hostile to another theory?

A lot of you people need to do your homework. Here is a good place to start.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

I'd like to know why evolution has stopped. Where are all the creatures crawling from the swamps? Where are the hundreds of thousands of living transitions as these creatures painfully adapt to life on land?

If evolution were true there would be living proof, including the hundreds of thousands of transitions.

If they're honest, Lookout, they're not so hostile. To say one doesn't believe in belief would be a tenuous limb to go out on indeed. We can't even prove F=ma. We've just never found a single example where it doesn't work. As an exercise, apply that metric to the topic at hand. Chaotic equilibrium-seaking "it is the way it is because that's the way it is" scores very high on that measure - it works. Intelligent design, not so much. After all, what's intelligent about draining the sinuses over the cake-hole, and why isn't my bladder four times bigger? That would be an optimal design. And prehensile tails. Why don't humans have prehensile tails? Another major design error.

The way I see it, as soon as you introduce a metaphysical design channel, you've introduced a source of error, and existence doesn't do errors.

Jon the closet Liberal says: "People like me sit on CPC boards of directors."

Ooooooooh, you sit on a committee!

Tell us more about your brilliant plan to fight the Christians in Ontario by raising the provincial sales tax to 10%.

Tell us more about your brilliant plan to follow in the footsteps of Mao, Lenin, Pot and others by outlawing religion.

Tell us more about your brilliant plan to have a birthrate so low Charles Darwin would mock you and tell you you deserve to become extinct.

What brilliance! Truly a roadmap for the future.

If she is a proud product of U of T then her declarations give us a better insight into the quality of it’s grads than this trifle that has set her off.

I suppose it’s comforting for her to refer to herself as a middle aged hippie rather than a petrified adolescent. Have a look at her favourite music. Hippies have always wrapped their self absorption in a cloak of moral superiority and altruism. At 53 she’s pushing it to call herself a hippy. She was only a 13 year old girl during The Summer of Love. Maybe she’s one of those dreaded Neo-Hippies. Or maybe she just follows a routine of puffing her lungs up with Kitsilano brain enhancer and dinning on those wee Island mushrooms.

No doubt "smelly old hippie" lives off money she receives from EI paid into by Albertans. Liberalism truly is a mental condition.

Lookout, I both agree and disagree withyour first paragraph, specifically this part:

"if it’s true, it’s God’s plan and so OK with me"

My conception of god is not a being with anthropomophic qualities, therefore, it (whatever it is) does not "plan". I do not and cannot believe in a force that interferes in the daily affairs of humans on earth or any other planet, for that matter. But I do believe that the mechanisms of evolution do not disprove the possibility of some sort of creative force behind it all.

As an aside, contrary to your assertion, the mechanisms of evolution are so well understood and have such a vast array of "proofs" accumulated via the scientific method over a period of 150 years, that to deny it is utter foolishness that reflects badly on those who do.

The only reason the evolution thing is called a theory is because the world of science, by its very foundational principles, must always remain skeptical and alway remain open to new evidence and reinterpretion, so no theory can ever be arrogantly declared as a "fact", even though 99.9999999999999999 ad infinitum percent of scientists believe it to be so nailed down, it might as well be stated as fact. This, by the way, was one of my favorite subjects in university and I have continued to read books on the subject ever since I got my first undergrad degree, so I think I know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, to say that the theory of evolution is like the theory of global warming is a proposterous exaggeration. The theory of global warming is very, very new, compared to the theory of evolution. Give science 150 years and they will have nailed down the phenonenon a whole lot better than they currently have. At least now, the strangle hold by those who politicized the science of global warming is starting to be pried apart, and that is a good thing. Now, if only the same thing would happen with the creationists.

Good for UofT! Why not present ID as part of their science course? It is fast becoming a well known theory on mankinds origins. Why not present both sides of the argument? If mainstream evolutionary theories are as proven and rock-solid as many would ascribe then ID theory would quickly fall apart and only strengthen those who believe in evolution.
Personally, believing in random chance and rocks to man evolution poses alot of questions to me. Such as, where did the rocks come from? I have yet to have someone explain to me where the first primordial slime or big bang gases came from.
Everything man does on earth that has function and usefulness is a product of careful planning and orgainizex thought. Everything from toasters to cars are the product of mans intelligence and dont just happen. When there is a lack of intelligence and design things fall apart and become less organized.

Who designed the Creator??

Who raised my taxes?

Atheists. Atheists raised my taxes because they care more about fighting Christians than cutting taxes. Closet Liberals, the lot of them.

vitruvius - I'll second and third your comment that the U of Alberta is superior to the U of T - and I'm a U of T grad.

But, U of Alberta, in my view, encourages quality innovation, thorough research and exploration, debate and questioning - in a manner that the U of T doesn't. The U of T has become more 'hidebound' and trapped in old fiefdoms.

joe - 'theory' doesn't mean 'virtual' or imaginary. It means the analytic component of a hypothesis, which is then empirically supported by material evidence. You cannot just operate with only the material 'particulars'; you need a theory, an analytic 'map' that correlates and links those particular facts.

And as pointed out, Darwinism never had any application to human societies.

I agree that ID (understood as design by an intentional metaphysical agent) is akin to AGW, the flat earth society, and various utopianisms. That is - fallacious but emotionally attractive. I think these views should be explored in universities. Universities, as pointed out, aren't for promulgating truth but for questioning conclusions. It is the act of questioning that gradually leads us to valid conclusions.

I'm an atheist; that doesn't mean that I reject universal morality. Sheesh - the views that some of you have of atheists - akin to The Devil. Please wait for Hallowe'en. Actually, Richard Ball, most theories, including ID, are 'rife with inconsistencies and improbabilities'.

Dave in pa - the statistical question is wrong. The key phrase is 'just happen' which implies ungrounded, uninformed biological processes. Evolution and the formation of organic entities aren't processes of 'just happening' but are acts of 'complex adaptive systems' (CAS) that operate by processes of gathering, using and moulding information. And, a CAS doesn't require a metaphysical agent (ID); it manages all by itself.

Pope Benedict's Regensburg lecture, is indeed, Vitruvius - excellent. We need both faith and reason (actually, very Aristotelian)..

By the way, certainly accept evolution, but not the reductionist neoDarwinism, which is based around random mutation and natural selection. Darwin's original theory wasn't as mechanical and reductionist as neodarwinism. But, for a species that is 'out of sync' with its envt and needs to adapt - to rely on a random mutation to come up with a solution is like me waiting for the lottery to pay my bills. (sigh).

No, our planet operates as a CAS, and its properties exist in a 'borderline' state between instability and stability....A bit much to discuss here..

Actually, ol hoss, evolution hasn't stopped; biologists are finding new adaptations and new species all the time. Check out the journal Science. Google 'new species'. Google 'speciation'.

I think more important here is that this JJ is no different that many people and other provincial governments in this country.

Look at Saskatchewan NDP ads, saying they don't want a life style like Alberta; so elect us again. Sort of the Federal Libs saying (or really coveting the American way of life) by saying the CPP are promoting an American way of life...

It all boils down to envy... these people can't accept that Albertan's worked very hard to eliminate their public debt (provincial anyway); by making hard economic choices. Now with no interest payments on a huge and untenable public debt; plus the resource revenues; everyone in Canada want's a piece of the pie without earning the right!

Shades of PET raping the west in the early 80's by confiscating resource revenues to fund their deficit spending.

Anyway... I guess this person like many others use derision of other people, provinces or nations as some sort of justification to support their own uninformed opinions...

One good thing though... we are all still allowed to do this and I hope that doesn't change; nor the right for others to publically oppose that view.

As Aristotle said, ET, "Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities."

ol hoss, no one, and I mean NO ONE in the scientific community or even people like me who are just interested in the subject believes evolution has stopped. There are numerous examples of the process available for study right now in many parts of the world. Go down to your library and get a few good books for the layman explaining the science. I think on the greatest difficulties people have with this field of science is grasping the great expanse of time of the earth's history. It's hard to comprehend the passage of 4.5 billion years, but that's the kind of time frame in which the process of the beginning of life and it's continual evolution has to be understood.

Um Jon do you really think that you know me that well as to say that I know nothing about evolution? My specialty is in the hard sciences Math and Physics I admit. However as a person raised in a 'scientific' culture fully immersed in Darwinian biology I did actually take some time to read a good number of biologists explaining the theory of evolution. Having read them I determined that like many ivory tower residents they had no clue about the real world and how it worked. The statistical probability of the random developement of DNA goes way beyong the 6 billion years we think this universe has existed. Of course having said that there comes the problem of LIFE itself. I can take the DNA of a dead dog and do whatever I want to it but it won't come back to life.

Who is it who said "life is more than a bunch of amino acids bumping together". If you are as scientific as you claim to be then it is time you did a few experiments of your own that you too might gain in knowledge and wisdom. Right now all I see coming from you is atheistic hatred backed up by science someone else gave you and you have accepted uncritically.

It's interesting that it's those who live closest to nature who, in the main, understand all that is has been created. Even the animals understand.

An example is the Asian tsunami. The animals knew it was coming and moved. Nature speaks, but those who rely solely on their own, or others, reasoning are deaf. Man's reasoning will get you dead. Here and the hereafter.

Any bets as to Unrepentant Old Hippie's response to a U of T course on the Koran, or Wahabism, or comparative religion, or Gaia worship, or Zen, or...

The core of a true bigot is that they don't see their own bigotry for what it is.

Oh, and by the way, I think Intelligent Design is complete crap. Theories that have no heuristic or predictive value aren't much use, you ask me.

A thread is officially killed when Andrew starts blaming a section of Canada for his problems.

Yes, Andrew: Jon, an engineer, atheist, and a CPC member from British Columbia is responsible for the Ontario PC loss in the last election. Happy now?

A set size of 4.5 billion? Peanuts. Here's a question for you: how many RNA transcriptions have there been in the history of the planet? Then throw in a little of ET's CAS stuff. Now we're havin' fun.

Yukon says "Whaaaa! That's raaaaaaacist!"

This thread was supposed to be about mocking a leftist for her bigotry, not an attack on Christians.

But since we're on the subject tell me more about your brilliant plan to outlaw religion, Yukon Gold. Tell me again how raising the PST 2% will aid your jihad against Christians. Tell me again how your abortion society birthrate would be mocked by Charles Darwin. Please, enlighten me.

No, this thread is killed when people pay too much attention to Andrew.

"Somehow you've managed to assume that some hippie from Vancouver Island represents the view of the liberal-left"

Pretty much...if it quacks like a duck....

Stick around and live a while Jon, you will dicover that Liberalsim is a mental disorder and that socialism is greed disguised as morality....and yes it's easy to recognise someone who subscribes to these simplistic errant lib-left dogmas.

Live and learn...live and learn.

There is a problem when society , as it seems to be doing now, looks to science to provide the answers for everything. It cannot. Science is limited in its methodology. Scientific method is purposeful but not appropriate for every type of enquiry. Science cannot, by itself answer all the mysteries of man's existence and being. There is more to man than what he can observe.
As a Christian, I do not find there to be a conflict between science and faith. God is 'reason'able.

Actually, ol hoss, evolution hasn't stopped; biologists are finding new adaptations and new species all the time.

That's interesting. Where are the hundreds of thousands of living transitions that lead up to all these "new species"? Stopped, just like I said.

No, liberalism is not a mental disorder, don't be silly.

vitfalsius says: "No, this thread is killed when people pay too much attention to Andrew."

There you go again, attacking a conservative when every opportunity exists to spank a young punk atheist who really deserves it. Way to mark yourself as a closet Liberal, Liberal.

I asked you atheist freaks 3 simple questions and I demand an answer, now:

-Tell us more about your brilliant plan to fight the Christians in Ontario by raising the provincial sales tax to 10%.

-Tell us more about your brilliant plan to follow in the footsteps of Mao, Lenin, Pot and others by outlawing religion.

-Tell us more about your brilliant plan to have a birthrate so low Charles Darwin would mock you and tell you you deserve to become extinct.

Speak now, or admit you are part of a death cult.

Posted by: Vitruvius at October 20, 2007 11:10 AM

"what's intelligent about draining the sinuses over the cake-hole..."

Efficiency. Our throat area is used for both eating and breathing. Having the mouth and nose adjacent provides a redundancy for breathing without which many of us would now be dead. The processors of air and food, our lungs and stomach are marvellous in their workings, as are all the systems that comprise the human body. There is zero chance that all of this "just happened".

That's one argument, Richard (though I still think the nose should go under the mouth). Yet the other argument is that the only way that is could all have happened is that it just happened. Either way, it's been a long day for me folks (well, technically I've been working night shift), so I wish you all well, and leave you with the words of Indira Gandhi, who said: "There are two kinds of people, those who do the work and those who take the credit. Try to be in the first group; there is less competition there."

The trouble with the opening argument for ID is that it contains buried question-begging. The standard opener for the ID proponent is usually, "it's obvious that there's design in the universe; just look around and see." This begs the question: "if an organism that did not interpret the external world as ordered sprung up, how long would it last?"

Further to previous comment, a link from a reputable science/philosophy professor and theologian. The Pope.

http://www.zenit.org/article-20238?l=english

At least the "Alberta backwater" has a culture where vulgar obnoxious people and pathalogical arrogance are shunned...
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux

Really? I thought you sent them to Ottawa as MPs.

I have not been able to force myself to buy into the theory that there is an almighty God looking out for me etc.

However, I have no problem with the fact that most of the world does. I will respect their views and hope they will respect mine.

The Old Unrepentant Hippie women who is dissing those who wish to study the "God as supernatural Engineer of the universe" is a first class hypocrite.

While dissing those who believe in the supernatural or the heavenly, or magic she proudly list in her personal provile that she her astrological sign is Virgo and her Zodiac year is Horse.

Check it out here if you wish.

If ever there was an imaginary belief system, it is Astrology.

She is actually on Vancouver Island where I also live. This is a place there are many old hippies hiding out from reality.

I cannot dis this woman any further since she listed Steely Dan as her first music favorite then Pulp fiction and Reservoir Dogs as her top two fave movies. On those counts alone I like her. Plus we both obviously don't buy the God thingy.

Peace!

I have not been able to force myself to buy into the theory that there is an almighty God looking out for me etc.

You are probably right.

Proverbs 8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.

I sent her a respectful email about her intolerance.

unrepentantoldhippie@yahoo.ca

(I especially liked the "This Flag isn't white" logo on the right...)

"If ever there was an imaginary belief system, it is Astrology."

Every friggin' Canadian woman I meet believes in astrology. But Christianity is, to them, stupid. This is not logical.

the fossil record does not have any evidence of one species evolving out of another - in fact the fossil record shows exactly the opposite. During the Cambrian period, some 530 million years ago there is a great diversification of life and the sudden appearance of animals. Before that there were only single celled organisms. There is no evidence of evolution from amoeba to frog to alligator etc.

Yes there is plenty of evidence of micro-evolution (changes within species) but there is actually no evidence of macro evolution. When the journal Science or Nature publish that a new species has been "found" it is simply that no one had seen it before, not that it had recently evolved.

As a molecular biologist I would have to say that belief in evolution (one species evolving out of another) is simply that - a belief. It neatly explains the big questions (how did we get here, what is the meaning of life, etc) for secularists and atheists. It is not based on reason or fact because as I stated above there is no fossil evidence of it occuring.

(Richard Ball and Joe, I appreciated your posts; have not had time to read all posts)

Andrew appears to be quite logical. I think Canada needs more people like Andrew. I notice how nobody ever seriously disputes what he says, they just blurt out "you're mental!" or "you're stupid!".

I think we're pretty lucky to have The Only Person In The History Of The Internet To Defeat Atheists In Debate comment here.

Yep, Science definitely is the winner in explaining the origins of humans. It is really hard to successfully debate the ID side against evolution. ID does belong in university as a tool for critical thinking and debate.

I think that believing in a greater being is important to many of us mere mortals though. Spirituality gives many a feeling of comfort and purpose beyond todays rampant materialism and self-centered existence . Formal religious institutions provide tradition,companionship, charity and some very good rules to live by. Hardly deserving of the condescension or outright hatred it so often receives by our enlightened progressives and media.

When bloggers like the obvious Christian-o-phobe highlighted in this post goes on a an intolerant rant I find it humorous. Why? Because often these are the same people that believe in junk science and tabloid experts unconditionally - almost religiously. They fail to use their own common sense and observations to evaluate the flavor of the day "science" that we are bombarded with on a daily basis.

In fact, I have become as skeptical with modern science as I am of fire and brimstone TV evangelists. Both seem to be motivated more by personal economic well being than truth.

Just to add to my little riff above, "liberalism" as we define it today is crap in exactly the same way intelligent design and astrology are crap.

You can demonstrate that none of these none of these theoretical structures tell you anything useful about the real world, nor do they allow you to ask useful questions.

Such things are worth a university course, as the study of them reveals their flaws and instructs the young on the dangers of sloppy thinking.

Belief in Christianity does not require one to swallow the steaming pile that ID is, nor does it require the rejection of science as a whole or evolution in particular. Mostly because the truth about the world is we don't understand how it works. Anybody who says they've got it all figured out is either a charlatan or they haven't done the math right.

A small example from my area of study: there is currently no -complete- understanding of what makes muscles contract. They've got pretty far with it, but once you get down to the molecular level there's a "Here Be Dragons" sign where nobody knows how it works. Pardon me if I find protestations of "there's no way this could arise randomly!" a bit premature.

Yep, Science definitely is the winner in explaining the origins of humans.

In order to have won, one must have won something.

What tangible thing, in this regard (the origin of humans), has science "won"?

Andrew - would you happen to be a Christian? Just trying to establish the basis for dialogue here...

Pardon me if I find protestations of "there's no way this could arise randomly!" a bit premature.

Hurry up. You've only got until you die to figure it out.

"What tangible thing, in this regard (the origin of humans), has science "won"?"

A marginal tax rate exceeding 50% for people making $30,000 a year so we can defeat teh xtians!!!!11

Tenny: No, I am not a Christian, or an atheist. I'm also faaaaaaaar too clever to have form :-)

To give you an idea of where I am coming from, though, I live in Ontario, where fearmongering against Christians just propelled McGuinty to re-election and an imminent 2% PST hike. So I think it's time to turn the tables and demand some answers from this death cult called atheism which acts as a collusive unit to raise my taxes, starting with their propensity for mass murder and aborting their offspring.

pretty obvious sock puppet, aka, andrew, your hubris defines you as a Cloud Dweller. That's someone who is far removed from facts and reason.

The fact that you DEMAND answers is arrogant. Your three 'questions' or rather, assertions, are completely unfounded and illogical. That is, you can't correlate 'atheists' with 'fighting Christianity' and sales tax raise to 10%'. There is no factual link. There is no correlation between atheism and outlawing of religion in Ontario/Canada (huh? where? when?); no correlation between atheism and low birthrate'.

You need a course in basic logic - and some counselling to deal with your arrogance and egoism.

ex-liberal, if you are a molecular biologist, I'd think that you would be a proponent of gradual evolution (neodarwinism) and find it strange that you don't comment on the various modes of speciation (allopatric, etc).

I disagree that the appearance of a new species can be defined as only that 'we' were ignorant of it before.
Again, a CAS, which is what I define both abiotic and biotic systems as, is the source of adaptation and speciation (evolution).

phantom - the theory that I work on, using CAS, is that an organism will informationally interact with its envt, sense that adaptation is required, and, self-organize several hypothetical solutions to this need. This is called 'Strong Anticipation'. The one that the organism actually chooses may be random, but, any one of these several hypothetical solutions would have worked.

A marginal tax rate exceeding 50% for people making $30,000 a year so we can defeat teh xtians!!!!

One of the hazards of having a "king" over you. The Israelites wanted a king over them, like the heathen. God, while granting that request, listed the things a king would take. God only asks for 10% to be freely given. Net, not gross. You can read all about it in 1 Samuel 8.

Closet Liberal ET tells the following outrageous lie: "no correlation between atheism and low birthrate'"

Factually inaccurate. Since my time is more valuable than yours you will provide ample data supporting your fake claim which is proven false by extremely googlable data. I've posted relevant data to prove you wrong at this very website repeatedly and have no obligation to prove you wrong again. In summary, way to not defend your beliefs, lefty.

It gives us our morals ---- such as the residential schools ??

An example ? Dinosaurs to birds. Primates to us.

I can only assume from her attitude and her website that Little Miss Muffet has all the answers to "life, the universe and everthing".

That's good, because I don't and would very much appreciate her sharing her knowledge with the the rest of us.

Until she reveals all to us, I would prefer to keep my options open.

Vitruvius:

James Thurber once said that there are two kinds of people in the world:

"those who divide the world into two kinds of people and those who don't".

You're welcome

Final comment for the day:

As I said before:

Keep posting, Andrew.

It is really hard to successfully debate the ID side against evolution. ID does belong in university as a tool for critical thinking and debate.

What's fascinating about this debate, though, is that the two sides are both turning into worldviews that are becoming adept at explaining the world. I have to say that it's somewhat refreshing to see theists trying to put together an explanatory model that, when finished, would almost pass a Turing test for existence-based rationality.

Let me throw a kicker in, which might very well reveal what faith I was born and raised into:

A quite serviceable argument for the claim that "evolution is not a tautology" is the doctrine of the Imperfectability of Man. Adding it to the evolution corpus demonstrates that evolution does not lead to perfection; thus, it is falsifibale because an alternative not provided by evolutionary processes is conceivable.

ET - you're getting carried away again...

Of course one can correlate 'atheists' with 'fighting Christianity'. Most of the currently trendy christ-bashers are self-proclained atheists (the rest are Islamists).

There is a correlation between atheism and the outlawing of religion. This is supported by recent history. To be concerned that it may happen in Ontario is legitimate (although somewhat extreme).

Of course there is a correlation between atheism and low birthrate!

Be nice to poor Andrew...

Oh, and BTW, are you off your meds?! Are you now invoking lamarckianism and/or vitalism as darwinian "mechanisms"?

...

'Tis grant writing season, the time when academics get combative ;-)

"the fossil record does not have any evidence of one species evolving out of another - in fact the fossil record shows exactly the opposite. During the Cambrian period, some 530 million years ago there is a great diversification of life and the sudden appearance of animals. Before that there were only single celled organisms. There is no evidence of evolution from amoeba to frog to alligator etc."

Sure it does, it just takes a bit more study than regurgitating talking points from the Creationism Institute. Funny how that works.

So, what brought about the great diversification? Why, no need to look farther than the Intelligent Designer. No need to fret about the various protohumans who failed, like those crazy Neanderthals who were a different species of human.

Then, there's this thing involving reproduction. That's pretty poorly designed on the human level. Spines and hips and so forth, plus the reproductive cycle, are unnecessarily complicated.

I give this design an F.

no, tenebris, CAS is not Lamark (post hoc habits) or vitalism. It's informational dynamics, ie, organisms gather information from the envt, and self-organize adaptive reactions to this information. Hardly wierd - there's an enormous research area in CAS.

No need to move into personal insults (off meds?). It's a legitimate field of research (CAS as informational processing systems).

I disagree with your correlations: atheism and low birthrate, atheism and outlawing of religion; and atheists and raising the Sales tax.

Birth rate is more accurately aligned with economic mode. Outlawing of religion is more accurately aligned with the substitution of another authoritarian power (the state)and has nothing inherent to do with atheism. And, atheism has nothing to do with any increase of the sales tax.

Daniel - you are presuming that "evolution" is finished with us (pardon the anthropormophism). What if "it" isn't?

Baiting the rest of you, the best scientific evidence, drawn from all relevant disciplines, strongly asserts that there is neither an "up" nor a "down" to evolutionary processes. We are NOT climbing mount perfection. What evolution giveth, devolution also taketh away. It's a question of time scale. Vitruvious gave the party line: existence is (shades of Hume!). ET is not (to her credit) satisfied with this, and dresses up old theories in new clothes to inject a "striving mechanism" into darwinianist natural selection operating on mutational distinctions in population groups.

Evolution: the marriage of "existence is" and "God is not".

Yawn...

Andrew,

Ontario went liberal because people like me got fed up with the stupid residents and left. I moved from Kingston to Vancouver. Although I miss the freezing rain and teacher's union hegemony, I wouldn't go back for the world.

Also I joined the CPC because I want to reduce taxes and reduce the influence of unions and special interest groups in politics. Also, I wanted to make sure the dinosaurs of the CPC (you antiabortion, anti gay marriage people) have less influence on my personal decisions.

Joe and other ID people,

Stop with your fossil record talk. Asking a Christian about fossil records is like asking a socialist about fiscal responsibility. I get it... God obviously put them there as a test of our faith. Or maybe, God put you here as a test of my faith.

When you talk about proof in the fossil record you want a conclusive step by step process which shows each change. The problem with you, and others who have predetermined belief in the past, is that no amount of proof would show you that from Lucy's skeleton to Jon Taylor is a direct line of great apes and humans. You're like a 9/11 truther who jumps from one criticism, already proven wrong, to another, hoping to catch someone who doesn't know all the answers. Did you know that no time in the history of the world has fire melted steel? Did you know that there is no fossil history of one species changing to another? Did you know that George Bush shot Kennedy 6 times from the Grassy knoll? Did you know that radiation kills everything in space, so we didn't go to the moon?

Religion is a tool to scare people into sacrificing the only life they have, so that they'll have a perfect "after life" which no one has seen.

How about this Joe? You give me absolute irrefutable proof of heaven and hell, and I will find you a species that evolved into another species. And remember, I won't accept your proof even if it's conclusive to everyone else except me... just because I have faith that I'm right.

Finally, why are humans taller now than 200 years ago? Is it because it's God's will to make us bigger? Maybe it's because we had better food. Or, maybe, we are getting taller and stronger to attract those of the opposite sex to have our children, propagate my genetic code (please tell me you believe in genetics), and continue the betterment of mankind.

No need to fret about the various protohumans who failed, like those crazy Neanderthals who were a different species of human.

Just because somebody's subjective interpretation says so, doesn't make it so. They looked like apes because they were apes. duh

I give this design an F.

Your body is probably failing you because you didn't read and heed the manual.

Old White Guy said:

"christian faith has given us the law and morals that we live with today."

There are quite a number of problems with this very common assumption among Christians.

It suggests that "law and morals" cannot exist in the absence of Christianity. This is clearly not the case, as there are plenty of moral and just laws in non-Christian places.

The assumption is also offensive to non-Christians. And being offensive is ... well, un-Christian.

Cheers

As a molecular biologist, I have to use reason and stick to the facts:

- On experimental grounds, there are no known random mutations that have added any genetic information to the organism. Clearly, if random mutations could account for the evolution of life, then those mutations must have added a vast amount of information to the genetic code. From the time of the first simple organism until the present profusion of life, billions of genetic changes would have to be built up by a long series of accumulated mutations and natural selection. It follows that each of these many billions of mutations must have added information. Yet in spite of all the molecular studies that have been done on mutations, not a single one has been found that adds any genetic information! They all lose information!

-At an event recorded in the fossil record and known as the Cambrian explosion of animal life, some 50 phyla (basic body plans) suddenly and simultaneously appeared in the fossil record. This is the first appearance of complex animal life. Only 30 to 34 of the phyla survived. The rest perished. Since then the fossil record and modern existing biota reveal that no new phyla have evolved. At a later stage in the flow of life, a catastrophic event (possibly the collision of the earth with a massive comet or meteor) eliminated 90% of all life forms. The ecology was wide open for new phyla to develop. Again, no new phyla appear.

-the second law of thermodynamics: organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. You cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct.

-Mutations are the result of DNA that is replicated with damage and passed on to the offspring. Mutations are very rare because of DNA checking and repair. However, one in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule can result in a mutation. The mutation changes are random, unpredictable errors that cause crippling diseases, loss of function and the destruction of the host person or animal. Mutations destroy. They do not improve.

ET - relax! Have a glass of port. I've a great deal of respect for you, but you're getting wound way to tight. Rejoice that you no longer have to make midterm exams, and pity the rest of us, who must heap abuse on our colleagues rather than on our students.

Pretend it's a faculty meeting.

"It's informational dynamics, ie, organisms gather information from the envt, and self-organize adaptive reactions to this information. Hardly wierd - there's an enormous research area in CAS."

No problem with this statement. The problem comes with its implicit projection onto evolutionary vectors. THEN it's lamarckianism.

Hmmmm ... well perhaps earth was visited by some Aliens a long time ago who had monkeys (or sub-humans) as pets and a few escaped ... just a thought !

Andrew (the good one),

I absolutely agree. The Christian moral and ethical codes are derived from Hammurabi's code of laws and the Egyptian book of the Dead, both predating Jesus by thousands of years.

BTW, what do morals and ethics have to do with evolution?

...we are getting taller and stronger...

Stronger? I'd like to see you wrestle with some old farmer of 70 or 80 yrs ago. lol

Jon - "why are humans taller now than 200 years ago"?

Better and more varied food, better sanitation, better medical care...

Evolution has nothing to do with it.

I don't get why so many Christians get so worked up over evolution. It's only a theory... not a conspiracy. There is no nefarious purpose to the theory of evolution. There are practical benefits to understanding it.

If Christianity doesn't serve any purpose other than explain how you came to be, you aren't getting much out of it. The point of Christianity is not to understand where we come from. That's for science.

"we are getting taller and stronger..."

Americans are getting shorter (and about 25 lbs heavier) in the more recent time span, much public data exists to prove this. This is evolution?

Note the height of the Dutch.

Over to you, Tenebris:

If evolution can "perfect" us by a present-day conception of perfectibility, then what about the imperfections that will be revealed in the future, ones which we cannot know about now because they won't be evident to us until then? (H/T: Bertrand Russell, who made the point that if all of our desires could be satisfied today, then new desires that we can't conceive as of now would likely arise.)

To get more down-to-earth: if Darwinian evolution by means of natural selection was unfalsifiable, then the Piltdown Man would never have been successfully exposed as a hoax. It could have been claimed that evolution produced the Piltdown Man anyway, only through means that are unfamiliar to us.

In my opinion, neither science nor religion can ever solve the ultimate mystery of existence itself. Religious people (and I would include myself in that category) claim that "God" is the author of existence. However, when asked who created God, we usually answer "No one", thus begging the question. People of a scientific pursuasion (and I would place myself, perhaps presumtuously, in that category as well) attempt to trace the evolution of the universe by following the physical evidence. According to rumor, the search has led back to a rather large "bang", after which everything evolved somewhat haphazardly. While I suspect the scientific camp has a pretty good handle on HOW things evolved, I don't believe it can ever answer the question of WHY the world evolved. More mundanely, I doubt scientists will ever see beyond the big bang, back to its existential predecessor. But who knows? God has made, and continues to make, more intellegent people than you or me.

I don't get why atheists freak out over evolution. Atheists love to talk about science but when you correlate their atheism with mass murder, mass abortion, and voting Liberal they shut up fast.

I'm Orthodox, assuming that's directed at me...

"Just because somebody's subjective interpretation says so, doesn't make it so. They looked like apes because they were apes. duh"

Stupid DNA, being all incompatible and whatnot. Stupid Neanderthals, having a similar societal structure as their human counterparts. Subjective? Nah, it's pretty objective that Neanderthals were the intellectual equals of "cavemen" but were an entirely different species. The problem was that they couldn't adapt to the warmer climate. Sturdier construction for the ice age, that and our direct ancestors probably wiped them out. Go HUMANS!

"Your body is probably failing you because you didn't read and heed the manual.
Posted by: ol hoss"

My body is doing just fine. Talking about reproductive cycles over here. No other animal has such issues with giving birth or even procreation. Poor design.

ex-liberal,

Second law of thermodynamics? Doesn't apply to the discussion, like at all. You didn't actually state it properly. Sigh.

The Christian moral and ethical codes are derived from Hammurabi's code of laws and the Egyptian book of the Dead...

I don't think so. Here is an example, side by side;

Offense.
Stealing. Restoring double (Ex. 22:9).

Punishment by Khammurabi's Law.- Death (§ 4).

Burglary. Restoring double (Ex. 22:7).

Punishment by Khammurabi's Law.- Death (§ 21).

Harboring a fugitive slave. No offense (Deut. 23:15).

Punishment by Khammurabi's Law.- Death (§ 16).

Injuring a slave. Freedom given to slave.

Punishment by Khammurabi's Law.- Master compensated (§ 199).

Injuring a rich man. Same injury inflicted on injurer.

Punishment by Khammurabi's Law.- Same injury inflicted on injurer (§§ 196, 197).

Injuring a poor man. Same injury inflicted (Ex. 21:23-25).

Punishment by Khammurabi's Law.- Fine of one mina of silver (§ 198).

Injury followed by death to a rich man's daughter. Each case judged on its own merits.

Punishment by Khammurabi's Law.- Death of injurer's daughter (§ 209).

Injury followed by death to a poor man's daughter. Each case judged on its own merits.

Punishment by Khammurabi's Law.- Fine of 5 shekels of silver (§§ 211, 213).

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (Robert Jastrow)

I personally remain unconvinced by the religion of Evolutionary Absolutism; please note capital letters.

Louise, 10:23 AM, hits the nail on the head... just my opinion.

And, oh yes, the hippie's a meat head... statement of fact.

I believe in intelligent design, yet I find this view discomforting.

Perhaps the most vigorous conditioning agent of our world is the food chain. Exquisite in its complexity and aesthetic ravenousness, it still nonetheless bring discomforture.

In India in the old raj system the young princes were educated for their future role as governors of the people. They were instructed in the "law of fish:"

"The big fish eat the little fish, therefore the little fish must be many and fast."

The old gnostics, when contemplating this fundamental constituent of "our reality", in some cases found this world to be constructed by some evil agent that was sometimes called a demiurge.

We live in what has been referred to as a superb predator system.

And this conditioning agent, the food chain, influences the way our psychology reponds all the way up into herd and pack behavior in government and university department heads.

I remember vaguely musing on some of these ideas in VietNam.

Some would think that to harbor views as I've just related would automatically suggest that one was an atheist. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

My view is that the universe has an Absolute Nature, and that nature is Divine.

I see divinity as both transcendental to creation and also immanent within creation.

Yet the fact that I do believe in intelligent design does not make a personal relationship to the Divine Nature of the universe any easier.

The problems that intelligent design brings to theodicy are grave. Now we have an intelligent designer orchestrating at least the potentials for tsunamis, tornados, psychological and biological entities developed with the capacity for war, serial killing, etc. We even have intelligent design apparently designing situations for bishops to consecrate priests who molest children.

So once one has concluded as I have that there is indeed a Divine Nature to the universe, that is only the introduction of a difficult point of view that will require a great deal of reconciliation.

Of course we are instructed that "the devil" is the lord of this world. And that "His ways are not ours". And so, perhaps, this leaves the Designer off immediate problem of material causation. But of course this is just one of many ways of looking at it.

I think Joseph Campbell stated it rather well when he said that the problem with our world is that it is ambiguous.

I think it would have helped if religion and science had never been separated in the West. It has been argued that our practice of having different classifications for different disciplines -- science, religion, economics, etc -- when in fact the truth is that all of these categories intermingle, and in reality are not completely separate from one another.

For me it's simply a matter of faith. I have examined both theories and I found Creation to be the more plausible. This is based on my observations: life never starts by itself from dead matter, objects never move without a force being applied to them (Newton), a watch requires a watchmaker, creation requires a Creator.

The problem was that they couldn't adapt to the warmer climate... our direct ancestors probably wiped them out. Go HUMANS!

No other animal has such issues with giving birth or even procreation. Poor design.

Talk about contradictions. lol

ex-lib: stick to your biology and leave the physics alone. Most physicists cannot properly circumscribe the application of the second law of thermodynamics to complex systems and those far from equilibrium, and bio people way oversimplify. The point is not the application, the point is: "Whence complexity? How do (if they do) systems far from equilibrium (whatever that means) bootstrap themselves (if they do) up the information ladder?"

After 150 years devotion to the only a-theistic model* there is, we are no closer to answering the "how". Most of the work these days still focusses on the "what". Far less stressful.

*The correct term is "the darwinian model" (or some variant thereof), not the theory of evolution. Properly, theories are prescriptive, which the evolutionary synthesis certainly is not. I may grant it descriptive status, but only for past events, not future ones.

Ultimately there is no reason for Christians to be concerned about evolution. If you don't want to believe in it, that's fine by me, but evolution doesn't "disprove" Christianity unless the purpose of Christianity is to explain where we come from, which it's not.

Thinking is inefficient. One can discern truth by watching two sides argue and deciding which one tells bigger lies and acts like the biggest weasels.

It's on this basis that I voted against MMP and, with only the slightest hint of facetiousness, that I find the case for atheism to be lacking.

tenebris - actually, I preferred the midterms to the faculty meetings. All postmodernists, mechanical leftists, not a logical thought in their heads.

As for Lamarck - well, some of the people I work with are Lamarckian, but, my problem with his framework is that he left out the mechanism of 'strong anticipation' which is an internal informational dynamics (operates by a kind of genetic algorithm searching process). And I happen to think that's the key to adaptation and evolution.

jon - nice post. thanks.

ex-liberal - the 2nd law refers to isolate systems and doesn't refer to non-equilibrium open systems that have the ability to input more energy/matter, and self-organize this matter.

retaliatory insta-troll, aka andrew. Provide some proof for your correlations. Just because you, andrew, say so, doesn't make it so.

ET
what economic 'mode' are Canadians in that has affected their birth-rate? Too much wealth? People are too rich to share? Too comfortable to care enough to worry about whether there is another generation?

A basic precept of secularism is the non-existance of God. Atheism.

The 'mode' of secularism is ''only for me''.

I see a correlation.

Your ignorance of public knowledge and inability to use a search engine is not my problem, ET, but rather a running joke at this website by now.

I am still waiting for you to provide me with evidence that atheism is not correlated with low birthrates. Step to it, and may I suggest you use an online source in your arguments, such as Wikipedia.

Andrew: That's fine but believing in evolution doesn't mean being an atheist.

You know what?

I just spent a few minutes on the 'unrepentant old hippie' site reading some of her posts.

I changed my mind. Despite our mutual admiration for Steely Dan, that woman is a despicable hate monger.

The persistent use of foul language on her site is oh so boring. I think this woman has some self loathing issues.

She doesn't allow comments, but does list her Email address on her profile page.

Judging by what I see on her blog, I'll bet she would be willing to do 'it' with Michael Moore or maybe Rosie O'Donnell. My guess is, probably both.

Pure trash, she is.

Daniel - I agree. Evolution cannot "perfect us". Evolution is falsifiable.

"Talk about contradictions. lol
Posted by: ol hoss"

Hardly. Most mammals have seasons for procreation and can give birth to multiple offspring. Few complications arise from giving birth, due to the better "design" of the birth canal.

Nice misdirection, though.

Vox - "That's fine but believing in evolution doesn't mean being an atheist."

If you were within 2 standard deviations of my intellectual (and moral) cohort you'd understand I never said it did. Maybe next time pool your money with some other Christian haters and hire a smart person to make a smart argument on your behalf, OK?

Settle down. Posts here seem to be pitting evolution against Christianity so that's how I took it.

Most mammals have seasons for procreation and can give birth to multiple offspring. Few complications arise from giving birth, due to the better "design" of the birth canal.

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;

Andrew - "Thinking is inefficient. One can discern truth by watching two sides argue and deciding which one tells bigger lies and acts like the biggest weasels."

Be careful. Profound statements will ruin your rep here. Then again, so will civility.

Andrew's right vox; in a post where a hateful shrew of a hippy calls Albertans "pig fuckers" you believe the appropriate response is to attack Christianity. Looks like Andrew loves spending afternoons drinking beer and arguing with haters. Today the beer is Carlsberg. The hater is you.

"Ultimately there is no reason for Christians to be concerned about evolution. If you don't want to believe in it, that's fine by me, but evolution doesn't "disprove" Christianity unless the purpose of Christianity is to explain where we come from, which it's not." (Vox Mentis, 3:00PM)

Well said.

But why is it that a great many evolutionists get so unambiguously furious over Christianity?
Just Christianity, forget all other religions.

Not that I mind, I guess. Screeds like the hippie's make me laugh.. really! I can just see the spittle flying as she talks out loud to her monitor, fingers slamming the keyboard like some kind of jazz pianist playing a fast piece.

I'm a Christian, why would I attack Christianity?

It's posts like this that remind me why I can't stand reading lefty blogs, even when they make a point I agree with. Asinine, potty-mouthed infantile rants all the time.

Joe B. - I suspect it's more a matter of people being angry at Christians and thinking that evolution is the best way to attack Christianity, rather than hating Christianity because they believe in evolution.

"Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
Posted by: ol hoss"

I'm at a loss here, dude. Your counterargument to the back/hip issue in relation to the birth canal is, in a nutshell, Goddidit?

Man, I hope you were just going for a laugh there.

ET - An interesting article on the correlation of birth rate with religiousity may be found at http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/7827212.html

You are forgetting to define your terms again, and Andrew legitimately keeps throwing pies in your face.

Yes, Andrew needs an intellectual spanking, but I suspect his mental diaper is too thick to notice. Meanwhile, he's amusing.

Does not the mere existence of this less than intelligent profane woman bring Darwin into doubt?

If evolution is a 'bullet proof' science then mules would reproduce. The pono-potty language of the self appointed 'elitist' left wing whacko crowd turns most people's stomachs. Dialoguing with them makes decent people feel dirty and tainted.

I commend all of the above posters for posting arguments that fight those who fire literal filth as the only ammo in an argument . As Canadian history has proved we ignore the scum of the people pond to our own peril. Teachers swear at students in today's de-education society because low IQ, tunnel vision people are attracted to the teaching profession. They cannot or will not attempt any profession that requires mental discipline. Citizens are committing their children to this ilk of people at a very young age(some go to daycare a week after birth!), any wonder that young people are often surly, demanding, self-centered, undereducated and without common decency?

This is why (as I wrote above, one cannot persuade someone who has faith in false gods)

"For me it's simply a matter of faith. I have examined both theories and I found Creation to be the more plausible. This is based on my observations: life never starts by itself from dead matter, objects never move without a force being applied to them (Newton), a watch requires a watchmaker, creation requires a Creator."
-Herman

So, by Herman's logic, it is more plausible that there is a god, who by all of it's grace, created men (then woman... because he forgot).

Atheism is faith based, so is Christianity. I prefer the rational approach. I do not know what I can not know... and please do not quote the bible to show that one must believe to know god.

Knowledge and belief and 2 separate things. One cannot have faith that dinner will come, one must know. One cannot know that god exists, one must have faith.

For every piltdown man there is a shroud of turin. For every -insert other evolutionary hoax (if any)- there is a book of Revelations, a mary image in a burrito and the three wise men.

Before you ask, read up on the origins (historical) of the Book of Revelations, and for the love of Richard Dawkins, please don't reference the bible.

I kinda like it -- PU ! Yea, that's the ticket... Yep -- time for a drink there baby...

The difference between the Shroud and Piltdown is that there isn't a bunch of people standing up for the authenticity of Piltdown.

Yes, let's all go off on a tangent and argue about something that has no definitive answer.

"I've wondered about that as well. I suspect that the "believe your parents" bit is partially the origin of religion. My reason is partially the fact my daugher (3.5 years) wants an explanation for everything. "Just because" does not satisfy her, but she isn't quite ready for the real explanation for a lot of things. I'm sure I could get to quit asking "Why?" with enough references to god. Humans seem to want to understand but frequently don't have the capacity or knowledge required, so left to them selves they abstract the problem away another step. ie. Saying god causes the rain isn't a explanation of how or why god would want rain, but it answers the immediate question of why it's raining."

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=333155&threshold=3&commentsort=0&mode=nested&cid=21039231

"But suggesting ID and science are even in the same ball park is just ludicrous or even worse delusional." by missing link

God is the creator of so-called Intelligent Design; man created the title 'science' to explain Intelligent Design and quite frankly, mankind, has a long way to go to explain sweet bugger all. It is hard to believe some people believe higher intelligence stops at 'man' and that if they can't figure it out, it doesn't exist or couldn't happen.

Vox, that sounds about right. Add to that this earlier post:

"When bloggers like the obvious Christian-o-phobe highlighted in this post goes on a an intolerant rant I find it humorous. Why? Because often these are the same people that believe in junk science and tabloid experts unconditionally - almost religiously. They fail to use their own common sense and observations to evaluate the flavor of the day "science" that we are bombarded with on a daily basis." (LynnH, 12:42PM)

Too true.

P.S. Although I'm no longer a practicing Christian, I've never deserted my belief in God. And yet, I've got to admit that I'm living proof of evolution; I used to vote N.D.P., then I "evolved" into a Liberal; now I'm a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party of Canada.

It's kinda puzzling why evolution would give an innate disposition to religion to humans.

'scuse, ol hoss. I speak Krydorian. Let me translate.

It's a systems engineering thing, Krydor. You can improve the back/hip thingy by going back to four legs, but then the female sexual position is limited to all four feet on the ground.

I LIKE the current design, and with 6Gig people on earth, you can't really argue that it doesn't work.

As long as I am allowed to comment here atheist trolls, smug academics, and other Christian haters need to be advised they will feel the full weight of my commentary should they try to turn this site into an anti-Christian hatefest.

Still waiting for data showing atheism to be uncorrelated to low birth rates. Also, an response to my factual claim that atheism is strongly correlated to mass murder and mass abortion and the extinction of species. Jon the closet Liberal, can you help us out here?

Joanne,

I humbly disagree. God is not the creator. I am god, and it is proven for me because I have faith. Let it be known from this date that everyone is dumb, but those who chose to believe stories from 2000 years ago instead of scientific reasoning are just a little more dumb.

As the profit William Hicks once said: Isn't it funny that those who believe in creationism always look a little less evolved.

Andrew,

You help as much as the NDP. Please go away.

Hmmm, looks like Jon The Hater is busy hating Christians again. That's some good hating right there!

Is there a smart person who can answer for the orgy of murder that is atheism?

Andrew,

As I wrote before. I am not an atheist, nor am I smug or retarded enough to think that I have found the way to heaven.

This is why you are an idiot:
"Latin America, which has some of the world's most restrictive abortion laws, is the region with the highest abortion rate (31), while western Europe, which has some of the most liberal laws, has the lowest (12)."

That was from this week's edition of that leftist rag THE ECONOMIST.

Ding, Largs.

andrew - we've chastized you before for your devotion to Wikipedia. Use it cautiously, andrew; it's not The Truth.

Again, atheism is not correlated with low birth rate; it's a spurious variable, ie, it has no relationship. The positive correlation is economic mode and birth rate. An industrial mode operates with more flexibility if the family unit is small, mobile, flexible (can move from city to city, country to country). Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with this. You'd have to consider whether an industrial mode can operate within a religious societal norm. Since it can, then, atheism is not a factor.

What you really need to work on, and it's not spurious, andrew, is your ego. Your self-asserted claims of superiority of intellect, morals and whatever else takes your fancy, fits the definition of an egoistic narcissist. Cool it, andrew. You aren't that smart.

lwestin - the economic mode is industrialism.

The mode of secularism is not 'all for me'. Secularism simply means the separation of church and state. That doesn't mean that the state exists 'all for me'. That's nonsense. The state must operate according to a constitution and the rule of law - and these must be based in ethical and moral principles. Nothing to do with religion, but with reason.

Andrew,

I know I should ignore you, but...
Hitler was a Christian Nationalist.
Pol Pot was a Buddhist Anarcho-Primitivist.
Truman was a Christian. (Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden).
The Spanish Inquisition was carried out by Catholics.
The French and Italian ones as well.
The Crusades were fought (by children) by Muslims and Christians.
Polytheists Killed Jesus.

Please visit a proctologist so that you can get your head removed.

Jon,

Here's why you are an idiot:

"San Diego Chargers acquire Chris Chambers from the Miami Dolphins just before Tuesday's trade deadline, giving quarterback Philip Rivers a veteran wide receiver to work with. "

http://www.wctv.tv/sports/headlines/10584232.html

This fairly random quote disproving nothing you actually said suffices to disprove what you said.

At least by the hideous, pathetic logic of a 20 year old boy.

Same Economist Article.

"WHEN Catholic clergy or “pro-life” politicians argue that abortion laws should be tightened, they do so in the belief that this will reduce the number of terminations. Yet the largest global study of abortion ever undertaken casts doubt on that simple proposition. Restricting abortions, the study says, has little effect on the number of pregnancies terminated. Rather, it drives women to seek illegal, often unsafe backstreet abortions leading to an estimated 67,000 deaths a year."

I'd say that makes you the murderer.

"Hitler was a Christian Nationalist."

Godwin'ed

BTW,

I'm 24, get it right.

Lance,

I know I'm sorry, but I hate the revisionist version of history which says that religious people aren't murderers.

"I'd say that makes you the murderer."

Only if you make the serious logical error of assuming I am both Catholic, which I have stated already I am not, and anti-abortion. This error in logic is so serious that I'm going to have to disqualify you as a "serious person" when discussing grown up topics, mmm-kay?

No more posting for you today; I have proven repeatedly that your logic is too weak to survive in this wild.

Tenebris,

You can also improve the back hip thingy by designing it properly in the first place. The curvature of the spine is a remnant from when we went on all fours. Our closest relatives, the Chimps, do not have similar issues. Our closest relatives are Quadrupeds, and they have all kinds of crazy sexual goings on.

Remember, the contention here is that we were designed and the only evidence presented with regards to this design and all the inherent flaws from Hoss so far is a quote from Genesis. That's it. Which means at least some IDers take the Bible to be literal fact. Which means, in some cases, that ID is a theological construct and not a scientific one.

My argument is not that it doesn't work, my argument is that the mechanisms to make it work are unnecessarily complex, making the designer pretty poor.

Andrew,

Please give a solid example of the orgy of murder that is atheism.

Don't backtalk me, punk, start answering questions or STFU.

That Bill Hicks routine you referred to is on YouTube, Jon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk&mode=related&search=

"My argument is not that it doesn't work, my argument is that the mechanisms to make it work are unnecessarily complex, making the designer pretty poor." (Krydor, 4:16PM)

The Model T wasn't overly complex, but I prefer my Toyota.

"There are quite a number of problems with this very common assumption among Christians.

It suggests that "law and morals" cannot exist in the absence of Christianity."

No your understanding of this Christian platitude is a tad shallow. Remember Christians were routinely murdered for a millennium in a religious genocide run largely by pagans or polytheist empires which were culturally immoral by today's (Judaic-Christian) values.

The fact Christians survived the pagan imperial genocides is proof there CAN be morality in a non Christian anti-theist world...it just goes underground in a secretive subculture...just like today...morality and ethics can exist in the absence of Christianity but wide spread morality and ethics as a personal imperative will be greatly deminished by the absence of a sect that has moral imperatives as the basis for its existance and the long term probability of para-Christian morality without cultural tolerance of non-secular institutional repropagation of Christian moral values is highly unlikely.

Immorality is just too self gratifying and politically/lucratively expedient to not become a dominant force...as it did in every civilization from Ur to Babylon to the communist empire.

Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work.

Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).

The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that “the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.”

The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.

But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).

Andrew,

Guess which mass murderer/genocidal maniac said this:

My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

Apologies to Lance.

Belisarius,

Man do I ever love Bill Hicks.

Evolution may occur in several ways. Among them, there can be genetic drift in a small population or there can be a random mutation that is successful.

This does not mean that evolution is random. The environment may allow the animal with the mutation greater reproductive success which allows the mutation to spread in the population. This gives a larger number of animals with the mutation to have further mutations which then can be selected for allowing complex structures to be built over time.

Speciation occurs when populations of animals can no longer interbreed. You can climb Mount Improbable by natural selection and that was Darwin's point.

ol hoss,

thanks for pointing out the differences between Mosaic and Hammurabic law codes. In Mosaic law, the people are in possession of sovereign rights; the king is under the law. In Babylon, a limited monarchy would have been deemed a contradiction in terms. In Mosaic Law (Torah/Bible), the death penalty for property crimes is abolished; and whether the theft be from king, noble, commoner or slave, the fine is the same.

Let's take a closer look at one of Jon's statements:

"Also I joined the CPC because I want to reduce taxes and reduce the influence of unions and special interest groups in politics. Also, I wanted to make sure the dinosaurs of the CPC (you antiabortion, anti gay marriage people) have less influence on my personal decisions."

There you have it. An admission by an atheist who we can agree really hates Christians that he is infiltrating the Conservative Party of Canada to cleanse it of Christians, who he percieves to be "dinosaurs". In addition, two consecutive sentences begun with a conjunction, which is pretty typical of an illiterate from a non-merit university like Queen's.

Presumably the imminent hike in PST from 8% to 10% does not constitute an infringement on freedom but anything going against Jon's radical gay and abortion agenda does. That's a closet Liberal right there. I am contacting Don Plett to advise him of your hate speech activities.

Jon: Have you read my posts? I don't refer to the fossil record. I approach our reason for being based on things we can accurately measure or mutually experience. The reason I don't refer to the 'fossil record' is simple. Fossils are an anomaly not a norm. Of all the billions of creatures that have walked, swam, crawled or just sat have left any fossil record at all? How many species of dinosaurs existed? No one knows because the 'fossil record' is incapable of telling us. The same can be said of any number of living organisms. Similarly the absence of record does not mean absence of being. If I can't find the fossil of a mouse does that mean that mice never existed? If I find the fossil of a cat that is thousands of years old but never the fossil of a mouse does that mean that the cat never hunted a mouse? Imagine if you will an evolutionist a million years from now finding the fossilized remains of three extinct yet different animals. The fossil of a donkey that is a million years old, the fossil of a horse 500,000 years old and the fossil of a zebra 100,000 years old would the future evolutionist be right in assuming that the three did not co-exist or that the zebra is the descendant of the horse which is the descendant of the donkey?

Back to present tense if I find the fossil of a funny looking monkey would I be correct to assume that the monkey is normal for its species? After all it could be deformed (birth defect) or suffering a deforming illness (rickets). Would it be a safe assumption on my part that the deformed monkey had any offspring let alone be the ancestor of a whole different species of monkey?

The fact remains that many of the fossils we have are one of a kind and so we make all kinds of assumptions. This is the reason I don’t rely on the fossil record. I can make it say what ever I want it to say and then use my conclusions as the proof of what I allege, and that dear sir is bad science by anyone's definition.

"The Model T wasn't overly complex, but I prefer my Toyota.
Posted by: Joe B."

I would prefer my 1972 Valiant to my 2006 Saturn. Pinnacle of engineering, that car. Slant 6, made of steel, great on the highway, a furnace in the winter, and actually had stuff under the hood I could recognize and fix. Sigh...

Ex-Liberal,

Nice plagiarism of trueorigin dot org slash steiger dot asp. Might want to credit them, or something?

I doubt that religion is the primary factor in mass murderers like Hilter, Pol Pot etc. More likely it is caused by a certain personality type. A type shared shared by likes of Stalin. Religion may or may have been used as a justification for their behaviour in their own minds. It does not follow that this means that their delusions and atrocities can be expanded to discredit the religion as a whole.

Science too has caused deaths. The deadly art of war has increased its ability to kill because of its discoveries. For instance, Hiroshima's nuclear bomb was not created by priests but by scientists. By your reasoning all scientists and science should therefore also be declared monsters. Hardly the case.

Most wars, counter revolutionary cleansing and genocide can be traces to grabs for land, money and power. The ideology, Christianity, Communism, etc, is only used as a cover for the true goal.

I vigorously disagree with your first paragraph, Lynn, but the third paragraph is of high quality and shows rare levels of understanding of human nature and world history.

Hate to say it, but this discussion has DE-volved into a big, name-calling dogfight.

I think the original intent of the link to Harpy's... er... hippie's post was to point out HER intolerance of a belief system to which she doesn't subscribe. So, why is the thread stuck on "God exists/doesn't exist, like that old Monty Python skit where the philosopher and the bishop wrestle best 2-of-3 falls to settle the matter?

"So, why is the thread stuck on "God exists/doesn't exist, like that old Monty Python skit where the philosopher and the bishop wrestle best 2-of-3 falls to settle the matter?"

Because there exists a pool of atheist trolls who are trying to hijack this website and have been for months and Uncle Andrew is not going to let that happen.

Krydor, no disrespect meant... I figured that we all needed a note of levity injected in here somewhere.

Ex-Lib, Old Hoss,

As you both can see there are differences in the code of laws but morality existed before Jesus.

BTW, I need to see one hell of a lot more than: "I doubt that religion is the primary factor in mass murderers" before I even bother marking prospective atheist trolls.

My Momma taught me to never argue Politics or Religion. After reading 183 posts on this thread, I have to agree with her, bless her departed soul.

The CPC in Canada is the party of Freedom.

Anyone who has read my rants at SDA, know that liberty is the goal for a society. Having dinosaurs like you push your religious opinions on people like me is not liberty.

Krydor - "The curvature of the spine is a remnant from when we went on all fours."

Sorry, not true. This is an unfortunate fable. Go talk to an anatomist. The spine is a marvel. Chairs, chips, and soada, however, are not.

"Krydor, no disrespect meant... I figured that we all needed a note of levity injected in here somewhere.
Posted by: Joe B"

Eh, didn't see it as disrespect. That Valiant rocked the house, man.

Andrew,

It's about tolerance. I tolerate your bullshit. In fact I would punch a kitten to allow you to say it, even if I don't agree. The reason why this thread has been hijacked, is that the first 20 posts stated some explicit falsehoods about evolution and creation. Everything after that has been a response to what I tolerate from you.

Jon the Hater says "People who disagree with my radical gay/abortion agenda are dinosaurs and Christians, even if they specifically and repeatedly explain they are not Christian. I hate Christians waaaay more than I hate taxes and human rights courts.

Calling people who disagree with your gay and abortion radicalism as your Super Priorities "dinosaurs" is brilliant, of course, and par for a Queen's "graduate", but you still haven't provided an explanation for what I have demanded:

-Correlation of atheism and mass murder. Let's see contextual numbers, punk.

-Correlation of atheism and abortion leading to an unsustainable society doomed to extinction.

-Correlation of atheism and voting Liberal, thus actively working to restrict freedom.

Start talking.

Jon,

As far as I understand, Christians uniformly deny that Hitler was a Christian, basing their "judgement" on the "by their fruits ye shall know them" test.

Krydor, '64 Chevy Biscayne with a 283 did it for me. It came with 2 lap belts in the front seat, sometimes carried 7 or 8 friends in it... we survived.

Chariman Mao got his start as an anti-marriage activist. In his early years he didn't care much about workers and such, he was basically a lazy hippy who was bitter at his arranged marriage. Source: Mao, The Untold Story.

Andrew, put down the beer before someone gets hurt.

One of the time-tested defintions of foolishness is "not knowing when to stop".

Andrew,

Atheism and Mass murder - no correlation. See above.
Atheism and Abortion and Unsustainable Society - ugh, I don't even want to know what you think a sustainable society is. Yikes.
Atheism and Liberalism - I don't know, I've never advocated either.

As for being a Queen's Grad. That's exactly what my diploma says and my ring means, it's iron.

Someone who wants to regress to policies long abandoned by society are Dinosaurs. You lost it on abortion. You failed. You 0 - Aborters 1.

Unlike the quote you attributed to me - I don't hate. I might laugh and mock, but that's only because I feel bad for people like you.

We're done here.

andrew - your pompous self-glorification, your egoistic narcissistic assertions of your superiority - well, they're fun to read. But, it would help if you'd be a wee bit more.. factual. And logical. By all means, don't stop informingn us how superior you are. Just, in between the self-glorification, please provide us with some facts and logic.

For example - your statement that 'assuming' that you are catholic and anti-abortion - is a 'serious logical error, and an 'error in logic'. Andrew - these statements have zilch to do with logic; they are statements of fact, and if they are in error, these are factual not logical errors. I suggest that you take a basic course in logic and critical thinking. And do something about that ego.

No- your claim that you've proven that atheism is correlated to mass murder is invalid. You haven't proven it. Same with any correlation between atheism and abortion, atheism and extinction of species. Just because You, the God-King Andrew, state something, doesn't make it factual. Prove it. And a link to an article isn't proof. Did you know that one can find articles about everything?

No, ex-liberal, the classic argument against entropic dissipation is not that life operates in an open vs closed system, but that it operates in an open vs isolate system. The car, the wooden fence, the decomposing carcass are examples of non-living systems. The self-organized actions against entropic dissipation are carried out by LIVING systems that are open to adding and organizing energy. A mechanical system (and dead system) can't organized energy/matter.

Atheism and Mass murder - no correlation. See above.

FAIL.

Atheism and Abortion and Unsustainable Society - ugh, I don't even want to know what you think a sustainable society is. Yikes.

One that doesn't go extinct. FAIL.

Atheism and Liberalism - I don't know, I've never advocated either.

And FAIL, hard, for gross ignorance.

Hate less and you'll be less stupid.

I'm at a loss here, dude.

No doubt...dude.

I'm at a loss here, dude.

No doubt...dude.

Tenebris,

It's pretty convenient to claim that someone isn't christian because they're not your cup of tea.

The Quote I posted about Hitler earlier was from:
Norman H. Baynes, The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1, New York: Oxford University Press, 1942, p. 19-20 ISBN 0-598-75893-3

ET I'm still waiting for the data I demanded from you several hours ago.

Andrew Keyes wrote @ 2:21: "Old White Guy said:

'christian faith has given us the law and morals that we live with today.'

"There are quite a number of problems with this very common assumption among Christians.

"It suggests [sic] that 'law and morals' cannot exist in the absence of Christianity. This is clearly not the case, as there are plenty of moral and just laws in non-Christian places. [There are, Andrew? Examples, maybe.]

"The assumption is also offensive to non-Christians. And being offensive is ... well, un-Christian.

“Cheers"

(I'm writing this and then will read the other comments.)

Nice try, Andrew Keyes, but your suggestion is rubbish. Check out what C.S. Lewis wrote about what he called the Tao: as one of the twentieth century's leading Christian apologists, Lewis posited that the moral codes of the successful early civilizations were both very similar, and similar to, the Ten Commandments. It's in your head that Christians believe that law and morals cannot exist in the absence of Christianity. As I said, this slur against Christians is utter rubbish. (It also shows a serious lack of both knowledge and reasoning skills.)

E.g., The Biblical Jews weren't Christian and had a very sophisticated set of laws and morals. That said, as the West jettisons its Judeo-Christian heritage (respect for and adherence to most of the Ten Commandments: could you cite more than one or two?) and (mis)spends the dwindling moral capital of that dispensation, our societies are becoming more and more barbaric. Have a good look. And please, as I suggested above, provide present day examples of the “plenty of moral and just laws in non-Christian places”. Like, where, Andrew?

What Old White Guy said, "christian faith has given us the law and morals that we live with [sic] today." This is NOT rubbish. The very basis of Western society is undeniably Christian: except for the last century or so, virtually all of the great art, music, and literature, as well as the political, educational, judicial, health, and cultural institutions of the West were founded, nurtured and sustained by Christians—and were even exported to other countries, some of which appreciate the heritage and have built on it. (India comes to mind.)

IMO, we in the West are very fortunate to be the beneficiaries of such a rich and dynamic heritage: 'not perfect, but a darn sight better than any other I can think of, and obviously good enough for the multitudes of non-Christians who have flocked to the countries of the West in the hopes of being more free and more prosperous. (I think, with the apparent approval of people like Andrew Keyes—probably a fairly recent product of our execrable and dogmatic public school gulag . . . I mean . . . system—we’re now killing the Judeo-Christian Golden Goose: good luck to us.)

In its “wisdom”, the West has decided to turn its back on the Judeo-Christian dispensation in favour of multiculturalism and relativism: Christians, whose forbears built this country, now have “dhimmi” status in the West: check out how the Charter has been used in Canada, in our courts and Human Rights (sic) Commissions—see Rory Leishman’s fine book, Against Judicial Activism, Queens-McGill, 2006—in order to harass and punish Christians, but not other religious groups whose beliefs and ACTIONS actually ARE repressive.

In total sync with all of this is the entitlement of the worst elements of society and, as disrespect for both morals and law becomes the norm, a precipitous slide into barbarism. (Visit some public schools, Andrew, or walk down the street of any big city. If you dare, drive on our roads and highways!)

As I said, look around. (But first, you’ll need to climb out of your cocoon and take off the blinkers.)

"Sorry, not true. This is an unfortunate fable. Go talk to an anatomist.
Posted by: Tenebris"

All well and good, but I'll need more information than what you have provided. I was pretty sure that modern back problems have been traced to the spine not being well adapted to us being bipeds. I have been wrong before, but I haven't seen anything that contradicts this.

ET,

I think it's best to ignore andrew from the conversation in the same way that he ignores the facts, and decorum. Not much of a Christian is he?

Jon the exceedingly dense Hater concludes: "Not much of a Christian is he?"

How dense are you? I've stated twice and hinted once IN THIS VERY THREAD that I'm not a Christian. Get this: people are perfectly capable of finding you irretrievably stupid without being Christian.

ET - living systems are special? Isn't that, like, vitalism?

I've been reading political blogs for a long time and been active in politics for 30 years and I have to say that Andrew is the most dominant debater I have ever seen in my entire life. He totally is crushing these atheist weenies, hahahaha!

One more round I guess.

Andrew,

You've stated that you are not a catholic 2 times in the thread. Now please, the adults are talking.

Wrong again, my grotesquely obtuse Liberal friend:

Tenny: No, I am not a Christian, or an atheist. I'm also faaaaaaaar too clever to have form :-)
Posted by: Andrew at October 20, 2007 1:19 PM

That's like 6 times in this thread I've proven you wrong, are you a masochist or something? I should be charging you...

Jon, I believe what my senses can sense, can be explained through what we call science, but what came first, creation, evolution, or science? I'll help you out here; I believe creation came first, whilst you probably believe evolution came first. Science is just how humans explain the unfathomable, starting with theory until science can unequivocally explain beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is fact, taking into account human error; science is not an entity unto itself - science is the afterthoughts of humans, not the forethoughts.

I believe I was created in the form intended; you most likely believe you evolved from apes somewhere down the line, so I would venture to say, it be you that looks a little less evolved - I'm already perfect. Bwhahahaha!

Here, I'll translate it into leet speak that your foggy 20 year old brain might comprehend:

6nd73w 561d: "n0, 1 6m n0t 6 xt1an"

You understand now? You understand how "No, I am not a Christian" means that I am saying I am not a Christian? You speaky English?

Posted by: Vitruvius at October 20, 2007 9:53 AM

Bwahahahaha!!!

no, tenebris, to say that living systems take in energy/matter and organize it according to an internal metabolic capacity to do so, doesn't make them 'special'. It's a factual definition.

Cows take in energy (grass, water, heat)..and organize it to become..well, cows. That wooden fence of ex-liberal, may absorb water and heat, but, since it doesn't have that metabolic capacity of transforming these into more 'wooden fence'..well...

andrew - you have no right to DEMAND anything from me. Who the heck do you think you are? Your arrogance and pompous self-glorification, as I said, is fun to read, but - I certainly am not your slave.

But, I've asked you (not demanded) to provide proof for your assertions of correlations between atheism and various properties. So far, you haven't come up with any facts. Not one. Just pompous assertions. Useless.

Another thread that doesn't stay on topic.
Well, the way I see it is:
If atheists are right, then when the christians die what does it matter, we are all are gone for good. On the other hand, if christians are right and the atheists die they will be in for a very big surprise. Discussing religion is fruitless, you either believe or you don't, it's called faith. It just seems that there is an ever growing hatred against christians (and only christians) in the population of the western world. Interesting, no?

Krydor, yes I cut and pasted, should have given the link - I am adding a post here and there in between taking kids places, cooking, walking the dog, etc.

but my cutting and pasting does not detract from the argument against evolution:

mutations (that we see all the time in molecular biology) do not add information or improve the organism - mutations are harmful; we have complicated DNA repair mechanisms to try to deal with such mistakes.

The fossil record has no transitional organisms. Animals appear fully formed in the Cambrian era. This is actually the fossil record. There is no evidence of fish crawling out of the water.

Things do not randomly get more complex - it just does not happen.

Jon, I am not sure if anyone here ever said that morality began with Jesus. Jesus got his morality from the Torah.

"But, I've asked you (not demanded) to provide proof for your assertions of correlations between atheism and various properties."

Which Tenebris, not being a pylon for a change, graciously provided on my behalf.

Please provide proof that atheism is not correlated to birth rates as I have repeatedly demanded.

ET - OK, let's consider the cow...

Whence comes this metabolic capacity? That is, how does a simple system, in equilibrium, become a far-from-equilibrium adaptive system that writes its own source code of ever increasing complexity.

Answer: We don't know. And it is literally driving an entire scientific discipline squirrely.

Has somebody zapped a petri dish full of primordial slime with lighting and proceeded to create a life form and repeated the experiment under controlled conditions? Did I miss that issue of Scientific American? Note: recent reports of scientists stitching together dna and creating synthetic life *forms* does not constitute creating life. Only an atheist would suggest such a thing.

"Apparently, science can be used to "disprove" the other guys, but don't you dare suggest that the postulations of ID or Creationism be subjected to the same rigors. I wonder if they've ever even noticed the hypocricy of that position." by Louise

Louise, you know this works both ways - to me it is obvious that atheists use science to disprove creationism as much as anything.

I don't know who ever told people that those who believe in Intelligent Design do not believe that science can explain many of the mysteries of the universe and far beyond. One has only to read the Bible to know that God's works are fundamentally based on what humans refer to as science. What can be proven through science only helps our knowledge to increase and to ever explain what we do not understand at any point in time.

"By comparison, the petty bickering and oneupsmanship of the creationism versus evolution debate is like a kindergarten brawl." by Louise

..but it is fun...

Andrew, you lack civility. You are not interested in the topic of discussion, but merely in being acknowledged correct.

Fine, thou art correct.

BTW, you do realize that there are disciplines that use the word "correlation" in ways that conflate the term with "causation"?

Now, I think Andrew is in need of a time-out. A week ought to do...

My favourite Andrewism thus far:

"and other Christian haters need to be advised they will feel the full weight of my commentary".

People keep stating here that there is proof that evolution exists; okay, name one so-called proof that exists based on scientific fact.

Tenebris says "Ban the only small c conservative left in Canada"

Good call, lefty. Don't ban the 20 year old who refers to Christians as "dinosaurs" and "retards"; I couldn't possibly match his level of civility. Call for the banning of the only small c conservative around these parts. That is the correct call, and you are a correct, politically and otherwise, person.

I am still waiting for data from atheists defending their orgy of murder.

yes, me no dhimmi, that statement of Andrew's was fun, wasn't it! He's such a pompous egotistical airhead.

Yoo hoo, andrew, you can't demand anything of anyone here!

But, I asked YOU to provide proof of your correlations. Tenebris isn't you, and his link isn't proof. As I said, atheism can simply be a spurious variable in the set. Do you know what spurious means?

And - you haven't provided any evidence of your other correlations. I know, I know, we ought to accept what You, the Magnificent, tell us. But, I prefer science to you. So, andrew, how about the proof of your assertions?

And, did you know that one can't prove or disprove a negative?

tenebris - right - how matter became self-organized is the 'moot point'.

Another issue is that Darwin's Theory of Evolution makes fairly specific predictions about what the fossil record should reveal about the history of life on earth. The fossil record is presumed to be like a vertical time line with more recent organisms near the surface and more ancient ones deeper down. In his 1859 book, Origin of Species, Darwin predicted that the fossil record will show that 1) species appear gradually, 2) change constantly, 3) disappear gradually, and 4) missing links between major types will be filled in.9

After some century and a half of digging up fossils all over the world, we now know that all of Darwin's predictions have been refuted: 1) Species appear suddenly, 2) show no significant change, 3) disappear suddenly, and 4) the missing link problem gets more acute instead of more resolved with time. Under these conditions, Darwin himself would have dropped evolution as an explanation for the origin and diversity of life.

Above and beyond all the probabilistic arguments is the biochemical challenge to evolution. When Darwin proposed his theory, no scientist could imagine in his wildest dreams the incredible chemical intricacies underlying every biological process. This posed a new problem for the Darwinists: irreducible complexity. This means that if any one of dozens of key elements of a biochemical process would be missing, the entire process would simply shut down. Just as the dysfunction of one small screw could destroy a jetliner, so too one missing chemical can terminate an essential life process such as photosynthesis, respiration, blood clotting, or reproduction.16

This is an impossible outcome for Darwinian evolution. Macroevolution requires a progression of one beneficial mutation after another, with each generation becoming more fit and more developed than the previous one, until more complex organisms evolve from simpler ones. But if an irreducibly complex system of, say, 10 elements is to evolve, than element 1 has to add some fitness, element 2 has to add some fitness, and so on until all the parts are in place. The problem with the complex system is that elements 1, 2, 3… and 9 do not add any survivorship to the species, and there is no natural selection favoring those intermediate stages. On the contrary, they will be selected against. Thus irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve into existence, and therefore higher life forms cannot evolve from simpler ones.

from Mind over Matter by A. Gotfryd

Yoohoo! ET! You've never provided a linkable chart or poll or study or reference or data point in your life, so kindly get on with providing the information I have repeatedly demanded from you: a defence of the orgy of murder you support.

jon writes, "The CPC in Canada is the party of Freedom.

"Anyone who has read my rants at SDA, know [sic: it's 'knows'] that liberty is the goal for a society. Having dinosaurs like you push your religious opinions on people like me is not liberty."

jon, I'm a Christian. I've paid my dues to society in more ways than one and am a Conservative/Reform/Alliance/CPC Canadian.

And, guess what? In the past 25 years, I've had "pushed on me" all kinds of (il)liberal fiats: abortion (I, as we all do, pay for it, in more ways than one), shacking up as equal to marriage, no-fault divorce, gay marriage (all detrimental to the identity and stability of our kids and, so, the rest of us), multiculturalism, relativism, etc., and "bloody well shut up if you don't go along" by the secularist powers that be in this country. (E.g., In Canada, it seems that secularists, homosexuals--often very obscenely-- and Muslims are pretty much free to act and speak as they wish. If any [dhimmi] Christian should disagree, and simply VOICE it, the punishment--via Charter-fed court and Human Rights (sic) Commission cases--can be catastrophic.)

And you, Jon, whoever you are, believe that YOUR liberties have been truncated. Please speak from some knowledge and humility. In truth, as a Christian and involved citizen in this society, my freedoms have been seriously diminished in the past two decades. (Why do you think I use a pseudonym?)

Re ID, the same shaming and isolation tactics are being used. If the theory's so ridiculous and neanderthal, surely, public exposure has to be a good thing.

Personally I preferred my 1961 Tr-3 and 1960 356b 1600 Super coupe to the stuff nowadays.

Damn, I wished I'd kept them.

Funny though how little hp they had, and yet I had so much fun it them.

Any Lada could kick their ass nowadays.

ET at 6:17 PM - "tenebris - right - how matter became self-organized is the 'moot point'."

Ummm - a "moot point" is one without significance to the argument. I think you mean the opposite?

Great comment lookout!!!!11 A rational explanation of how it is people like Jon with his radical gay and abortion agenda who infringe on the freedoms of the vast majority of people in this country who call themselves Christians, not the other way around. I notice you told no lies, which makes me inclined to believe you rather than big old atheist liar Jon.

speaking of sex with animals, didn't the goat humpers get their own foot washing sinks at U of T. I feel sorry for the goats as the koran tells them they have to kill the goat after having sex with it.

...WHOOPS SORRY! Accidently opened the wrong door.

Was looking for the washroom, thought it was in here with all the crap being piled up...

Evolve that.

Regionally speaking, civility is negatively correlated with Ultimate Frisbee participation.

I am pretty sure it is Mark Steyn who has made the correlation between atheism in Europe and their declining demographics.

If that is the case then in the Darwinian survival of the fittest paradigm, secular humanism will not survive.

Non-religious people tend to have fewer kids.

GROUP HUG TIME!...

Ok, all together now Koom-by-ya my Lord.

Thanks, RSSP! 'Though I don't know if jon, himself--I gather he's male!--has a "radical gay and abortion agenda".

However, he certainly seems oblivious to the fact that, over the past few decades, Christians have inexorably had such an agenda rammed down our throats, with the means to protest narrowed exponentially by the Charter-driven jackboots of the state. (Jon, for someone who's apparently, concerned about individual liberites, you should be unhappy about this coercive state of affairs. Here. In Canada. I'm not making this up.)

Sigh . . . the ignorance and entitlement of Canadians--usually both younger and the product of the sausage factory, socialist, public education (sic) system makes me feel despair at times.

Make that "liberties".

A pleasure, lookout. I'm quite certain that tightly-wound Andrew fellow would shut up if there were a just few more sensible people like you around these parts.

Regarding Jon's agenda, when gay marriage and abortion are the first things out of his mouth I have to think he thinks gay marriage and abortion are more important than taxes, schools, unions, national defense, freedom of speech and religion, and everything else to him.

Would we be wrong in calling someone who thinks gay marriage and abortion are more important than freedom of speech and taxes a radical? I sure don't thinks so, but I am an argumentative fellow...

Re: Liberties

Banning someone from getting a gay marriage is infringing on their personal liberties. You tell them they can't do something that has absolutely nothing to do with you. Same with abortion. If lefties wanted to abort your babies then I would stand up for your choice, otherwise I have no business in your affairs.

Re: Which came first?

Joanne, really? That's your proof? Wow. Proof for you believers of the gawd is subjective. If you look earlier in the thread, before andrew threadjacked it, you'll see that creationism is a myth that is believed. Evolution is a theory, which, while not perfect, as no theories are perfect until they are laws, at least follows the scientific method.

You can't come up with your conclusions and your conclusions must be based on tests that can be repeated. It's called hypothesis testing.

Re: The Charter

Our charter does not protect freedom of property, nor does it protect us from the tyranny of the majority, therefore the rights and freedoms it grants are inadequate.

Re: Christian Society

Lookout, although I appreciate that you have lost what you perceive as rights, I cannot believe that things are so bad for you to use a pseudonym. At my last blog, ecocon.blogspot.com, I used to call greenpeace fascists, I made fun of idiots like Andrew (RRSP) regardless of race or "minority card", and I still managed to get a job in Vancouver, the socialist capital of Canada. If my pregnant girlfriend gets an abortion, what is it to you? What if I was a chick, and my lesbian wife wanted an abortion? What is it to you? Like a conservative, you can pay her to adopt her child and compensate her for not having an abortion, but it's not your choice. We do not live in a country of Christians so it's important to realise that Christians will not always get their way.

Check out the economist article I posted earlier. The banning of abortion just makes abortion less safe for women, it doesn't prevent abortion.

"lookout":

And, guess what? In the past 25 years, I've had "pushed on me" all kinds of (il)liberal fiats: abortion (I, as we all do, pay for it, in more ways than one), shacking up as equal to marriage, no-fault divorce, gay marriage (all detrimental to the identity and stability of our kids and, so, the rest of us), multiculturalism, relativism, etc., and "bloody well shut up if you don't go along" by the secularist powers that be in this country. (E.g., In Canada, it seems that secularists, homosexuals--often very obscenely-- and Muslims are pretty much free to act and speak as they wish. If any [dhimmi] Christian should disagree, and simply VOICE it, the punishment--via Charter-fed court and Human Rights (sic) Commission cases--can be catastrophic.)

So you're basically complaining that you've had "pushed on you" the responsibility to respect other peoples freedoms?

Wtf?

Isn't this rather like a radical Muslim whining that the big bad Canadian government is "pushing on him" liberal ideas like women being equal to men, and spousal abuse being a bad thing?

Sorry buds, but when the government decides to recognize the rights of free individuals, they are not pushing anything on you. The fact that you feel offended by such freedoms is your problem. I suggest doing some soul-searching, and trying to figure out why you have such a strong desire to control others.

As for the issue of "intelligent design", I have only one thing to say on the matter: if this were an article about a university course based on the preachings of Mohhammed, we'd be hearing a much different tune out of you bunch. There's no room in our schools for ANY religious preaching, regardless of how you feel about the issue. The only place religion has in schools is when it's taught from a secular, non-indoctrinated point of view, and presented along-side all other major religions.

Lookout,

Just to clarify things.

Who someone has sex with - none of my (or your) business

Who someone marries - none of my business.

Abortion - I wouldn't want my girlfriend to get one, I use condoms, but I wouldn't lock her in the house to stop her, nor would I make a law that prevents her from getting one. I would just ask, since it's an elective surgery, to pay for it.

Taxes - No income tax. Tax consumption progressively.

Schools - I tried (and failed) to deregulate tuition at Queen's. I think that you get what you pay for, and the best and brightest will get in no matter what. Subsidizing university is just paying for a dating service for middle class people.

Unions - See the Simpsons episode "Last Exit to Springfield" the freckly teen says "You can't treat the working man like this, we'll organize and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve. Then we'll go too far and get greedy and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive."

National Defense - My ex worked there, they're good people. I'd prefer if we focused on defense of our nation, but I do understand our treaty obligations to NATO, which I also support.

Free Speech and Religion - Among the most important things in the world.

Andrew (aka RRSP) just because I'm not a backwards hard right ideologue doesn't mean I'm not conservative. People like you scare away MY Prime Minister's minority.

"Banning someone from getting a gay marriage is infringing on their personal liberties. You tell them they can't do something that has absolutely nothing to do with you. Same with abortion. If lefties wanted to abort your babies then I would stand up for your choice, otherwise I have no business in your affairs."

Well seeing as how these are the only two issues of substance in the history of humanity, this clearly means you are no radical and no Liberal.

"If my pregnant girlfriend gets an abortion, what is it to you? "

According to the best available data abortion is psychologically damaging and traumatic for men and moreso women, and I have to work with these people and share the road with them. So yes it is my business.

Wow. All of this because some granola crunching, burnt out leftard ranted about a university course. Why would anyone care about what some left coast moonbat says about anything? Geez!

Sorry for my outbursts earlier. I'm just having a hard time coming to grips with my gheyness. That's why I lash out sometimes.

Jon - To keep things simple, consider me a libertarian (reluctantly):

"You tell them they can't do something that has absolutely nothing to do with you."

Buddy, that's both the problem and the argument. The moment that your opponent can identify a negative societal impact, you have ceded him the right to control your behaviour. Philosophically, libertarianism is not a socially functional option. Neither is its bastard cousin objectivism.

Jon the katoy writes: "People like you scare away MY Prime Minister's minority."

No, idiot warmongers like you scare people away from Harper. If he goes down it will be the fault of closet Liberals like you sabotaging the party. Your future in the CPC, in light of your passionate hate, is bleak, young man.

Tenebris,

although I disagree with your point, I will defend to the death your right to say it. I also think that you're underestimating libertarianism.
What's the negative societal impact of abortion? If you read freakonomics you'll find that there's actually been a positive trend in the reduction of crime.

What's the negative societal impact of gay marriage? I can only think of one such issue and that is angering the religious for 1) being gay 2) stealing their word.

Live Free Or Die.

Whoops, I almost missed this lie, it is hard to keep track of Jon the Hater's lies: "We do not live in a country of Christians"

Canada has a wide mix of religions, but it has no official religion, and support for religious pluralism is an important part of Canada's political culture. However, most people report they are Christians, and this is reflected in several aspects of Canadian life.
...
In the Canada 2001 Census [1] [2][3] [1], 72% of the Canadian population list Roman Catholicism or Protestantism as their religion. The Roman Catholic Church in Canada is by far the country's largest single denomination. Those who listed no religion account for 16% of total respondents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Canada

Overview: Canada still predominantly Roman Catholic and Protestant

Seven out of every 10 Canadians identify themselves as either Roman Catholic or Protestant, according to new data from the 2001 Census.

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Analytic/companion/rel/canada.cfm

Holy crap I have never seen a guy so defeated in debate as this Jon atheist troll. I mean the guy literally can't type 3 sentences without telling an easily disproven lie. I feel sorry for him.

Andrew,
Your grasp of Canadian politics is absolute. You are a gentleman and a scholar. You've made a solid name for yourself at this site and everyone respects you. Congrats.

No, andrew - I don't need to do that! YOU are the one who brought up the correlations between atheism and X, Y. Z. So YOU are the one who ought to provide the data links! So far, you haven't provided a single fact. Not one. Just you, preaching from the pulpit and demanding that we accept your words as Truth. Piffle and puffle, andrew.

Yoo hoo, andrew, (aka sock puppet), you can't demand anything of anyone here. Egoistical Cloud Dweller that you are, you can pontificate, but you aren't an authority to anyone, or on anything.

ex-liberal - I'm against gradualism, and focus more on 'punctuated equilibrium' evolution. There's plenty of evidence of evolution. There are articles in Science on various changes in species, and google 'speciation' and see the host of information that you'll find on that.

I'm also against 'survival of the fittest'; I think what happens is that a 'feasible solution' to an environmental situation is formed, by the self-organizing informational dynamics of the organism. This 'feasible solution' will become a dominant post-emergence mode by 'preferential attachment' (a term and action found in network analysis). I don't accept survival of the fittest; after all, lions don't get to run faster and gazelles don't get to outrun the lions.

Yes, Mark Steyn has made the correlation between atheism and religious families. I don't think he's correct; I think the correlation is economic - and, he is speaking of Muslims, the correlation ought to be between a non-industrial dependent econmic mode and an industrial middle class mode.

Jon The Clueless asks: "What's the negative societal impact of gay marriage?"

Ah, yes. The LOLbertarian mantra.

"What harm could it do?

Since no society in history has ever had gay marriage and since data exists that shows gay societies such as Florence and Athens and Rome get their asses kicked with certainty, it is only logical to redefine marriage in our society to include gay people. What harm could gay marriage possibly do? I can't think of any."

Andrew,
Posting under other names to buttress your self worth is pretty sad. 7/10 is not a country, it's a part of a country.

As if you have any credibility left at this point Jon.

Andrew,
Coming from you that's a compliment.

jon, abortions--actually, the women and their partners who have made that choice--have been responsible for the PUBLICLY FUNDED loss of over 100 000 a year (2 MILLION) Canadian lives for the past two decades or so. And you say that's a PRIVATE choice? Mega $millions of the taxpayers' money. And why the need for massive immigration?

Check out Rory Leishman's book, Against Judicial Activism, to see how Christian teachers who express their views are being treated in Canada. Liberty? No way. And why can't I publicly express my opposition to homosexual marriage (which, IMO, in this "free" country, is not advantageous for children or the stability of society) without being fired? Check out the jurisprudence, jon.

Your glib response, though polite, is inadequate and misses the point by a few miles.

You say, "We do not live in a country of Christians so it's important to realise that Christians will not always get their way". Thanks for the advice, jon. I get it.

I'd just not like to be fined or lose my job because I have difficulty with the fact that the secular relativists or any-religion-but-Christian just about always get their way these days--at my and the rest of society's expense. If you think we're evolving to a more free, responsible society, as I said to Andrew Keyes earlier, wake up. And you say, with no idea of the present infringements on the lives of individual Christian Canadians, that you care about liberty. Your ignorance of the facts, your lack of understanding of the complexity and interrelatedness of human relationships and institutions, as well as your sense of entitlement disspirit me.

The I-and-my-shallow-ideas-are-OK-and-I-don't-care-a-fig-for-the-consequences may work for you, jon--I imagine, young, unmarried, no kids, few obligations--but it sure doesn't work for most of us, which, BTW, will eventually include you. Obviously, the truth of John Donne's "The Bell Tolls for Thee" is quite lost on people like you, who appear to be missing both the experience and empathy needed to understand the complexity of the topics you trot out on display.

Kyrie eleison. And God help us too.

Tell us again how our tax dollars going to abortion without our consent is freedom, Jon! You're totally awesome!!!!11

Some people say women should pay for abortions on their own dime; they're dinosaurs!!!!!!111

BCer at October 20, 2007 3:40 PM:

Okay, I think I got it now...thanks. Andrew's (and his sock puppets') sense of humour was just too far over my head...me being a boring engineer and all. I had, like several others still do, assumed that Andrew was a pompous ass, but instead I am now recognizing that he's just a "chain-yanker" having some fun. Reminds me of a previous poster named "Bob", though Bob was a bit more nasty, if I recall correctly.

Andrew, it's been a looooong thread...thanks for the laughs but like the saying goes "...all good things must come to an end...".

Eeyore is a socialist sock puppet who supports 20 year old haters and loves taxes and restrictions of speech and hates conservatives. He is, culturally speaking, gay by virtue of his hardline advocacy of gay causes.

Jon,

"What's the negative societal impact of abortion?" Lookout has given the "lost generation" argument. This is derivative, not fundamental. Read on...

"What's the negative societal impact of gay marriage?" That it is an acknowledged wedge issue for the legitimization of an hedonistic and self-centred lifestyle pursued by a substantial fraction of (the most vocal) homosexuals. The fundamental societal issue is the placement of self-interest above all other concerns.

This is socially suicidal, not to mention morally suspect in all traditional ethical systems.

Thus abortion...

Where I part ways from many of my fellow
C(c)onservatives is in the nature of the state response to such negative sociatal impacts. If at all possible, I believe they ought to be left up to individual discouragement (i.e., social disapproval), and not the heavy hand of state control.

Some people say women should pay for abortions on their own dime; they're dinosaurs!!!!!!

Since I'm paying for it, I vote for chastity belts.

my goodness, andrew, you do post under a lot of anonymous aliases, don't you? Now, you are 'eeyore monitor' and 'jon fan' and 'bystander'

You know, andrew, you state that you 'have to work with and share the road' with people - who have had abortions. [How do you know they have or have not?]. Remember, andrew, they have to work and share the road with a pompous egoist like you.

Oh - you still haven't proven your assertions from the pulpit. Unfortunately, I don't accept your words on faith; I need factual evidence. And, since you can't tell the difference between a logical statement and a factual statement - hmmm, that may be a problem!!

For a change, I agree with kingstonlad.

I think Kate is going to be pissed when she gets back.

Andrew seems to be an agent provocateur, posing as some kind of "hard-right" conservative.

Good call belly. The guy who admits he joined the CPC to cleanse it of old people and who calls Christians and his elders "dinosaurs" and "retards" at a conservative blog is not an agent provocateur, nor is the skank who calls Albertans "pig fuckers". I am, according to your brilliance.

Congratulations on achieving such Liberal wisdom.

See?

You have to admit Andrew totally burned you there, belly.

And for a change, I agree with lberia :)

A very, very small number of commenters run it up to nearly 300. A mile deep but only a couple of inches wide.

I'm disappointed to see this thread turn into such a heated debate. I was hoping for another one sided attack on Christianity similar to those found in the mainstream media.

I don't have to read anymore, lberia is agreeing with kingstonlad.

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the skeptic side
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest.
In doubt to deem himself a god, or beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer,
Born but to die, and reasoning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much:
Chaos of thought and passion, all confused;
Still by himself abused, or disabused;
Created half to rise, and half to fall;
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled:
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world!
-- Alexander Pope

...
In the Canada 2001 Census [1] [2][3] [1], 72% of the Canadian population list Roman Catholicism or Protestantism as their religion. The Roman Catholic Church in Canada is by far the country's largest single denomination. Those who listed no religion account for 16% of total respondents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Canada

Overview: Canada still predominantly Roman Catholic and Protestant

Seven out of every 10 Canadians identify themselves as either Roman Catholic or Protestant, according to new data from the 2001 Census.

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Analytic/companion/rel/canada.cfm

Ah yes, but it's nearly 2008. Don't know where you live but if it's anywhere in the vicinity of the GTA, you've got to know this has changed. If you live elsewhere, prepare yourself - Christianity may no longer be the order of the day.

What I find really interesting about this discussion/arguement/war is how totally bloody obssessed some people are about what happens between the legs of women that they will never ever know.

Bizarre!

Vitruvius: Thanks for the Pope. Also for your great comments on this thread. Also the music, videos, esp. Sade's Cool Operator.

Did I mentioned at all that you have a very large brain.

And oh, the aphorisms. Printed out all 38 pages which amused me for hours. Esp. ME's "Marx got one thing right -- the beard".

Ah, my master in the art hath returned from the sweet arms of morpheus. Thou hath escaped nightmare in sleep...

...now, if only the rest of us ignored Andrew so easily.

Bang on kingstonlad....I've never seen this site hijacked so badly before. Like lberia says....Kate is going to be PO'd. Andrew(or whatever),why don't you start your own sight so you and Jon can argue there and quit wasting her bandwidth? I sure hope you guys hit the make a donation button!

Andrew,

When you sober up tomorrow morning and read your posts you'll see what I mean by retard.

Joining the conservative party to keep taxes down and the government out of my life is the only reason to join. Joining to tell others how to live their lives is why we're the "Scary Conservatives".

Assuming someone is a liberal because they don't subscribe to the fringe elements of the party, and mostly things that are not in our mandate to govern or our previous platform is dense. See retarded above.

The old folk who want things to be like they were before Trudeau are dinosaurs. I was one of 3 people on the board in Kingston under 50, and it was pretty obvious that there were only 3 of us who created passable policy.

So, to bring this all the way back to the start:
I said a woman from vancouver isn't a representation of the liberal-left.
You said I voted for McGuinty (False).
Then you said "He's established a pattern as a Christian hater at several blog sites." (False)
Then I said I'm an anti unionist and prefer the gov't to stay out of my life.
Then you claimed (without proof of course) that Americans are getting shorter.
Then you starting ad-hominem attacks, and demanding proof that atheists aren't serial killers, without any proof (of course) that they are.

This is about the time that people started asking you to stop drinking and to regain decorum.

Then strangely you came out of the closet and developing multiple personalities. I guess you had a busy day today.

Oh, and you misread my comment saying that even though I wouldn't push for an abortion, if my GF wanted one I would pay for it, because it is an elective surgery.

I suggest you get rid of the hangover, go to church, or whatever and repent for being you.

Tenebris,

I totally agree, the role of society is to shame people from getting abortions and facial tattoos. The role of government is to maintain my liberties.

Goodnight everyone,

Sorry for threadjacking this with Andrew (and his personas) but the point of this thread is tolerance. How intolerant some on the left are, but also (obviously) how some on the right are. It's a shame we went to evolution and abortion, but these are 2 simple examples of how both sides of the coin are intolerant of the other, and how both sides are apparently intolerant of anyone who compromises.

Totally ignorant comment, rockyt.

My earlier response to Tenebris was lost, so I think I'll try again. Tenebris said, "If at all possible, I believe they [negative social impacts] ought to be left up to individual discouragement (i.e., social disapproval), and not the heavy hand of state control". Wouldn't it be nice . . . Tenebris, I really respect you. But here, you seem very naïve.

E.g., The very heavy hand—make that jackboot—of Canadian “state control” is now being used to FORCE approval of certain choices, with serious sanctions against those who simply voice their disapproval. (Back to evolution: that’s the only state approved option for Canadian science classes.) Citizens’ actions, which might signify "social disapproval", e.g., a letter to the editor, are now virtually outlawed in Canada concerning the behaviour of certain groups.

Certainly, a teacher who publicly registers disapproval of homosexual “marriage” is in real jeopardy of losing his/her job. This is very serious. Check out Chris Kempling and the legal precedent set in his case. Tenebris, what happened to him was “the heavy hand of state control” in spades. And, anyone who professes to care about freedom in this country should know about it and be concerned.

Indeed, concerning freedom of conscience and speech, Canadian orthodox Christians—Muslims and other minority religious groups appear to be exempt—are the canary in the mine. Charter "protection"? Not on your life. In fact, the Charter is being used as a bludgeon.

IMO, the brouhaha surrounding ID has the same sulphuric smell.

At your service Me No Dhimmi & Tenebris. It's not for me to advise Kate, but if this were my site and I found that some IP address has been posting under multiple sock-puppet handles, I would block it.

Other than that, I find this thread interesting. If one ignores the gratuitously belligerent and the over-indulgently absolutist, a number of folks said a number of things that are at the heart of the matter of humans' ancient journey toward the land of metaphysics.

Even the silly are interesting, at least in the anthropathological sense; surely if one is to attempt Sun Tzu's dictum of knowing one's enemy, then one must study their behaviour.

And lastly, don't forget that in these grand debates, there's always a certain amount of what John Cleese, Graham Chapman, Tim Brooke-Taylor, and Marty Feldman [sic] first expressed so well in this 1967 pre-Python sketch from "At Last the 1948 Show": www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsWd5QC7K5E

If abortion is such a great thing for women, how come we never see an abortion in a documentary, we'll only ever see the birth of a baby. Why is seeing the abortion of a baby or a picture of the aborted baby taboo? I know it isn't because of any respect for the mother or child, or the abortion would not have been performed in the first place. Just thoughts to ponder.

If I walked past a person beating a child senseless, is it not my business to intervene? Since when have we become a society that believes what others do does not affect society as a whole...rhetorical question, of course - we are fast becoming this kind of society. Sure people can do as they want, but don't expect others to not speak up, for it or against it; it is called calling people to accountability for their actions.

Jon - proof of creation abounds; one must believe with their heart and open their eyes to see. People speak up against abortion because for some it is an act of murder against the defenceless, not just merely none of their business. Societies changes and norms affect how people conduct their lives - it would be unresponsible to not speak up against what one believes to be wrong. We do not all live in a vacuum; it takes a village to raise a child; unfortunately, the village idiot always seems to have the most influence...go figure.

I was kinda shy about saying it, but I must agree with Vitruvius (he of large brain) that while I didn't think I had anything of value to contribute, I did NOT find this thread to have been hijacked. I too found it very lively, informative and entertaining.

Co-inincentally, Vit, I'd been reading Sun Tzu's Art of War but kinda set it aside, being a highly scrutable non-orientalist myself.

And oh, Tenebris has a big brain too obviously!

Jon - does anyone really stay on topic in real life; one idea leads to another and then to another - perfectly natural. I think people know themselves how intolerant or unaccepting they are of other people's choices, but one has to take into consideration where one draws the line between being being intolerant and tolerate to create a society that is accountable to one another. On certain issues, some people could care less, others could care more....it is all just mostly bark anyhow, unless you are a Christian then you are free game for all to bash.

The Art of War is very useful, Me No Dhimmi, in the same sense that the I Ching is (which I read in 1965), that sense being that you can pick any page at random, and within the next few pages you will find some clever quote to say, no matter what your context is.

lookout - A naïve Calvinist is an oxymoron.

Your pardon. I was not explicit. I wrote of what ought to be, not what is. What is, is the result of what happens when the state runs past wise limits. The state then becomes a danger and then should be put in its proper place.

Religion is pretty much a mental illness support group where people suffering from the same condition meet, justify, and celebrate it.

How arrogant to believe that the cosmos is here because we are somehow special in the mind of some unseen, unfelt and unheard creator, who babbled to fastidiousness with primitive and ignorant people of the past, but is totally deaf, mute and blind to more inquisitive and rational people of the present.

What DOES crack me up is the people who have accepted the Christian mythos as fact dumping on athiests/agnostics for being "closed minded" when they are in fact the ones who have reached a decision and stopped their quest. Atheists will be the ones who recognize the truth about our condition, because they're still looking.

People who call those they disagree with on an abstract philosophical point "mentally ill" are leading with a weak punch. Beware the short, quick counter-jab; avoid concussion.

Thank god there aren't a lot of a-the-ists around here.
We can do without people mangling their grammar
to the point of abrogating definite articles.

Atheists will be the ones who recognize the truth about our condition, because they're still looking.

Apparently recognising truth depends upon not having found it.

Must be atheist code.

so it seems that evolution isn't "settled science" either. How about 9-11, to go for the trifecta? That's not settled either. Just read the web sites.

How many posters out here belong to the skeptical Trinity: global warming deniers, IDers and 9-11 Truthers.

what a thread.

Not knowing the truth is not the same as not knowing the false.

Consider the following example. Say there is a glass of port sitting between me and my keyboard. If the conjecture is that the "spirit of port" is sitting between me and my keyboard, well, I don't know if that's true or not. I could argue either way.

But if the conjecture is that said glass of port is not sitting between me and my keyboard, then I know that the conjecture is false. Interminable dissertations of periphrastic circumlocution may be promolguated in the name of obfuscating the point, yet throughout the exercise, I can smugly sit here, point to the glass of port, and say: Yes it is.

"Interminable dissertations of periphrastic circumlocution"

Bwhahahahahaha

I think it's time you should all go to bed:)

Thanks, DJ. As y'all can see, I played an opening act in this show, and now, I've probably played a closing act. People get so full of themselves that they forget that all the world's a stage and all the men and women are blah blah blah. Yet the show must go on.

Please, don't forget to tip your waitress on your way out.

And as always, a big round of applause of our hostess Kate, without whom which we wouldn't be here -- this debating club wouldn't exist.

Y'all come back now, y'hear.

“athiests/agnostics for being "closed minded" when they are in fact the ones who have reached a decision and stopped their quest” Isn’t that the definition of closed minded? I decided and stopped looking.

Open minded would be I decided but kept looking which is how many or us creationists came to our conclusion. After all most of us was raised evolutionist. Creationism was never taught in High School or University when I went there. Even in seminary many profs were evolutionist and not creationist. For many years I proclaimed to everyone I knew that there was no god. Then one day God made His presence known to me. . In my experience with God I struggle at the many points that don't make sense to my human brain. Questions like who created the Creator? Questions like if God loves us why is there suffering in the world? The only consolation I have is that I am questioning my belief system in an open minded fashion. Fortunately for me the more questions I ask the more answers I receive and in the end my faith is strengthened by the questions and not weakened.

That is why I now say “Having reached a decision and stopped the quest is bad science”.

Or as John Stuart Mill said, Joe, "The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing when it is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors".

Andrew is simply the most dominant debater I have ever seen in my entire life. He basically took on about 30 people in this thread and made them look like the inferiorities that they are. Wow.

Unless I am mistaken and Kate genuinely approves of 20 year old punks trolling her site calling large segments of her readership "dinosaurs" and "retards" I'm quite certain she will not be banning Andrew's IP any time soon. She's too cruel to do that.

ET said: I'm also against 'survival of the fittest'; I think what happens is that a 'feasible solution' to an environmental situation is formed, by the self-organizing informational dynamics of the organism. This 'feasible solution' will become a dominant post-emergence mode by 'preferential attachment' (a term and action found in network analysis). I don't accept survival of the fittest; after all, lions don't get to run faster and gazelles don't get to outrun the lions."

Wow, nothing constructive to be add to this thread. So far, only one other real biologist who actually understands the science here made there presence known, Mr Pettit... :) Watching non-biologists and deists duke it out is akin to watching mud-wrestling: visceral, sometimes amusing, and devoid of any intellectual content whatsoever.

Vit, the answer to the cow is understood (long ago) - no space here to go into it, but don't assume one is more complex than the other...

Entropy, mentioned by another poster, is largely irrelevant in biology except at the atomic level.

A question for the creationists: why do you feel the need to "invent" a creator and "Intelligent Design"? Biologists don't... Are you still looking for validation for your beliefs?

ET - your entire professional credibility just went out the window in the quote above. You may call yourself an anthropologist, but really, you're a sociologist - you have no understanding whatsoever of the underlying biological mechanics of speciation, and hence, evolution, and therefore anthropology (Or rather, you've confirmed my long held belief that anthropology starts with the sophomoric intellectual premise: "assume an upright humanoid social mammal, and proceed from there..."). Dismissing precepts because you can't rationalize them, doesn't make them false. In truth, it speaks more to your understanding, then to the truth of the precept. If, as an anthropologist, you don't "get" S of F, then you really don't understand the concept - social structure in humans is entirely both the product and the process, of S of F.

ET, for but one example of "survival of the fittest" in action, reread this thread, its replete with anecdotes from the process...

Your basic atheist sock puppet writes: "A question for the creationists"

No, we can all agree that Christianity is under sustained attack in the media and from randomly appearing sock puppets and your question is just a cover for your out of control anti-Christian hate and therefore it is YOU who needs to start answering questions:

-Please explain the correlation between mass murder and atheism.

-Please acknowldedge that Charles Darwin would take one look at atheist birth rates and conclude, correctly, that atheists are inferior and deserve to perish.

-Please acknowledge that atheists tend to vote for left wing parties and therefore it is they who infringe on Christians freedoms, not the other way around.

Thanks, Joanne, for your defense of being our brother's keeper, a fine Christian doctrine: "Love thy neighbour as thyself,". Our secular society's so wrapped up in its navel-gazing individual "rights", which lead to so many wrongs, that we've become an intolerant, me-first mess.

Tenebris, thanks for the clarification. You wrote: "What is, is the result of what happens when the state runs past wise limits. The state then becomes a danger and then should be put in its proper place." How? (Easier said than done.) I guess a good start is to get rid of the intolerant, elitist, thug Liberals and to tune out and stop buying MSM lies. Any other suggestions, Tenebris?

Putting this in a community perspective, non-Christians--even Gary--should be very concerned when they see the state targeting certain groups and unjustly and arbitrarily truncating their rights. That's actually happening to orthodox Christian believers, who aren't allowed to even SAY certain things publicly unless they're willing to take the jackboots of the state. Yet, the most hateful and egregious things may be publicly stated about Christians: the perpetrators (often homosexual publications) get off scott free.

"No man is an island. . . " All Canadians who value justice and freedom should be very worried about this. "First they came for . . ."

A friend kindly wrote to say that you have been discussing my adult night school course, Design or Chance? which starts at Carr Hall at the University of Toronto (St. Mikes) Tusday night at 7:30 p.m.:

Our first speaker is Dr. Robert Mann, chair of physics at the University of Waterloo, on multiverse theory vs. a single universe.

More here:
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2007/10/course-by-design-or-by-chance.html

To judge from the heat generated, some people hadn't realized that I am not the first person to teach a course in the intelligent design controversy under St. Mike's auspices; that distinction belongs to retired high school teacher Bob Giza. I am aware of several other such courses as well, though not in Toronto.

I am a Toronto-based journalist, author, and blogger. My most recent book, co-authored with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, is The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper One, 2007).

andrew, aka sock puppet and various other names. Your egoism is boundless; but your analytical capacity and factual content are miniscule.

Again, your correlations are without evidence; the variable of atheism is spurious and not causal. You've never provided one item of factual evidence to bolster your claims; pompous assertions from the Andrew-Pulpit and your various sycophantic virtual Other Names are empty.

skip - no, survival of the fittest is not a valid biological concept. The term 'fittest' renders the phrase meaningless, turning it into simply 'survival means survival'. Oh - Instead of ad hominem, stick to the topic and supply facts and analysis to support your view. You might also find research on processes of strong and weak anticipation (CASYS) support my view.

Here is the poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemoeller, an opponent of the Nazis in Hitler's Germany:

"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

"When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

"When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

"When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

"When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."

For those here who think living a selfish, me-first, just-me life--this perfectly describes adolescence!--this poem describes the final end. Not only are others--for whom extreme individualists excuse themselves of any responsibility--damaged, in the end so are the selfish isolationists.

I'd also like to point out that, in a socialist system like ours, where many of us pay 50% and up of our hard earned money in taxes, a great deal of which goes to dubious ends--to name only two of hundreds: I'm forced to pay for abortions and free drugs for addicts in Vancouver--we are definitely connected, like it or not. To pretend we can live solitary lives, unaffected by our neighbours and not affecting our neighbours, is an adolescent fiction. Our free choices, good and bad, have a huge impact on others, often in ways we can't even fathom.

jon, as our birthrate plummets and taxes too, and our unmoored-from Judeo-Christian-morality-and service society becomes more and more dysfunctional and barbaric, you'll find that the privileged, taxpayer supported, little bubble you live in is going to burst. Then, having lived your life solely for yourself, by your own lights, who do you think is going to bail you out? (Christians? These people, who give far more $ to charity than atheists and libertarians, are all over the world, helping others. They might be underground in Canada by then. But, ya, they'd help you if you came knocking. And, won't you be fortunate they don't think the way you do?) Think about it.

ET the wholly discredited former academic writes: "You've never provided one item of factual evidence to bolster your claims"

Your claim that I dont post facts is, of course, factually inaccurate.

Tell us again how there is no affirmative action in Canada ET!

Tell us again how atheist birth rates are equal to Muslim and Christian and Buddhist birth rates, despite much public proof to the contrary posted in this very thread!

Tell us again how you are the last person in Canada who is unable to use a search engine!

If ET and Jon are the best the atheists can muster I am decidedly unimpressed.

I stand by my post of October 21, at 11:51 am.

Sometimes, you folks ought to just let the monkeys screech and throw their poop. Soon enough, they'll get tired and you can let the real debates happen.

just checking back in:

conclusion: evolutionism is a belief system

No one here has countered the fact that the fossil record does not support the notion of single cells mutating and becoming fish then mammals then humans etc. The fossil record just does not support this. It would be irrational to claim that it does.

Mutations in DNA are detrimental to the organism. They do not add up to the organism becoming more complex.

Whether it is gradual or punctuated, nothing goes from simple to complex, unordered to ordered by random mutations. Just saying that entropy does not apply to biology does not negate this.

Evolutionism is the religion of atheists/secular humanists. It is a faith. By Darwinian standards of survival of the fittest, it will become extinct because it does not promote its own reproduction (postChristian, post-religious, atheists just have fewer kids than religious folks - check out big old Catholic families, Chasidic Jews, Muslims). Who you going to believe - university intellectuals or your own lying eyes?

I specifically instructed you to answer for the atheist orgy of murder you support, Yukon Gold, and you and the rest of the atheists have failed to deliver. If you have more to offer than "that's raaaaaaacist!" then please, share.

I see others are joining my war on atheism:

How to Shut Up an Atheist if You Must
Written by Doug Giles

The atheist’s days of running circles around the Christian with their darling questions are drawing to a close. Yes, the fat lady just wrenched herself off her humongous backside, has cleared her throat and now is fixin’ to sing the finale on the atheist’s ability to have fun with their specious little fairy tales at the Christians’ expense.
...
1. When the prissy anti-Christs tell you the Bible stands in the way of science, inform them that the greatest scientific geniuses in history were devout Christians—and scientists from Newton to Einstein insisted that biblical religion provided the key ideas from which experimental science could develop.

2. When the pissy God haters tell you the Bible condones slavery, you can remind them that slavery was abolished only when devout Christians, inspired by the Bible, launched a campaign in the early 1800s to abolish the slave trade.

3. When the screechin’ teachers tell you the Bible has been proven false by archaeology, hark back and show them that each year a new archaeological discovery substantiates the existence of people, places and events we once knew solely from biblical sources, including the discovery of the Moabite stone in 1868, which mentions numerous places in the Bible, and the discovery of an inscription in 1961 that proves the existence of the biblical figure Pontius Pilate, just to name a few.

4. When they get sweaty and tell you that the Bible breeds intolerance, refresh their memory with the fact that only those societies influenced by biblical teachings (in North and South America, Europe, and Australia) today guarantee freedom of speech and religion. Period.

5. When one of them queues up and quips that the Bible opposes freedom, smack ‘em with the fact that the Bible’s insistence that no one is above the law and all must answer to divine justice led to theories of universal human rights and…uh…limited government.

6. When they tell you that Christianity and the Bible justify war and genocide, unsympathetically remind them that societies which rejected biblical morality in favor of a more “rational” and “scientific” approach to politics murdered millions upon millions more than the Crusades or the Inquisition ever did. Hello. “Atheist regimes have caused the greatest mass murders in history,” says D’Souza. Inside D’Souza’s book you’ll find little gems like, “The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Galileo affair, and witch hunts together make up less than 1% of the murders that have occurred during modern atheist regimes like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao.”

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/index/writergroup/comments/how_to_shut_up_an_atheist_if_you_must/

Lookout and others,

Can you guys stop with this stupid nonsense:
"you'll find that the privileged, taxpayer supported, little bubble you live in is going to burst"

You might want to check out how much construction engineers get paid before you assume that I am supported by taxpayers. Just because someone isn't anti abortion doesn't mean they're a socialist, or as our useful friend andrew says atheists.

Joanne, if you read the article I posted earlier about abortion, you'll see that banning it only makes women go and get back alley abortions. Please check out the most recent print edition of the Economist. You're hurting and killing people although indirectly by supporting anti abortion legislation.

As for the comments earlier about what religion most people practice, wasn't there a story on SDA recently (Steyn Article?) that focused on how Canadian participation in religion is practically dead... like 10% or something? I didn't search so I guess this is a moot point.

So, how has our society become more barbaric? I'm just wondering because that seems to be the common thread among those who want us to return to Judeo-Christian Values. I seem to remember reading lots about crusades, inquisitions and witch burning at the hands of those same JudeoChristians.

You'll also find that I am a bad atheist because I'm not certain there isn't a god. I'm just pretty sure he's not the god you think he is.

Atheism is indistinguishable from Satanism. In fact, most Satanists identify as atheists.

The Nine Satanic Statements
by Anton Szandor LaVey ©1987

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!

2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!

3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!

4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!

5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!

6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!

7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!

8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!

9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!

http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/NineStatements.html

*****************************************

Selfishness, man as animal, and hostility toward spirituality? Sounds a lot like our atheist friends Jon and ET.

"Freud’s “pleasure principle” should be known to be the highest motivator for any religion." - Anton LaVey

Game theory wise, atheism is tit for tat, a negative sum strategy. Briefly, atheism makes the pie smaller.

Altruism is of course positive sum and correlated with high intelligence (Rushton, passim). Christian values such as forgiveness cultivate superior societies which create bigger economic "pies". Atheists are freeloaders, or predators, or "parasites" on these advanced societies.

When confronted with altruism (spirituality), tit for tat (atheism/satanism) strategy is wholly indistinguishable from its adversary. The atheist is a sneaky weasel and Canadian need to take steps to identify atheists and protect themselves from atheists.

How do Satanism and Objectivism mesh? Rather well, according to the First Satanic Church:

"We have compiled a list of websites related to Satanism and intellectualism in general that we find to be though provoking and informative. The websites listed are not necessarily connected to the First Satanic Church; however they are excellent research tools for Satanism and various productive philosophies."

* The Wonder World of K. Gordon Murray
* Arkham House
* The 600 Club
* The Ayn Rand Institute
* Adbusters Culture Jammers Headquarters
* Disinformation
* The Noam Chomsky Archive
* A. C. L. U.
* Landover Baptist Church

http://www.satanicchurch.com/content/links.aspx

andrew - what the heck does affirmative action have to do with your claims about atheism? I never said a word about affirmative action; but, I'm totally opposed to it. So? What's your point?

I've asked you repeatedly to provide us with proof of your claims - and you haven't done so. Not a whisper; nothing. Just more bombastic emptiness.

I'm a discredited academic? By whom? Prove it, andrew. And I'm not a 'former' academic; kindly get your adjectives straight. I'm retired from teaching, but, alas and alack, am still committed to a number of research obligations. So, your ad hominem agenda remains like all ad hominem tactics, fallacious. Try facts and logic, andrew.

ex-liberal, your understanding of adaptation and evolution is incorrect. I fully agree with you that random mutations don't produce productive results, but informed mutations most certainly do. Check out speciation on google.

You can check on adaptive processes in Science journal and in various other biological journals. If you live in Toronto, (I think you do) go to the U of T Gerstein Science library and browse through the biology journals in the reference library.

andrew, for heaven's sake. Today is Sunday. Shut up. Go to church and listen to someone else for a while. Stop your egoistic, mindless empty pontificating. Or, if, as you say, you are not a Christian, then, you went to synagogue yesterday - and yet, you posted your hate-filled empty rants endlessly. Hmm.

Atheism is of course negatively correlated with (real) marriage, and (real) marriage between men and women is scientifically proven to be superior to new age family structures. Atheists, when one can manage to pry a fetus out of the cervix of an atheist woman (presumably with a crowbar), make poor parents, and that is a statistical fact (Kay, National Post).

Atheists like Jon and ET would have you believe that two lesbians and a turkey baster make better parents than actual parents; it's all part of their closet Liberal strategy to infiltrate the conservative movement.

WWOOOOOIEE!!! I go away for 24 hours and look what happens. 324 comments. Hot topic, or what!!

nd (real) marriage between men and women is scientifically proven to be superior to new age family structures

BWAHAHAHAHAH!

Oh....my...god...you're just about the funniest retard I have EVER seen! All you need to complete the picture is a safety-helmet and a pair of oven mitts!

lol

seriously, I'm tearing up from laughter here.....

Hey Andrew you f**king idiot.

Allow me to identify myself as an Atheist.

Actually am not anti-god, I simply do not believe in a supernatural deity. If I do then I am only a minute away from believing in ghosts, voodoo, Satan and a lot of other magical fluff.

My reason tells me that what is, is and there is nothing mystical running the show. It runs itself.

Now to the point. I have many other non-buying into the religion scam friends and here is what most of them believe.

- That killing unborn babies is wrong
- That two men having sex is perverted
- That criminals should be punished and punishment should fit the crime
- That Socialism is a horrible way of life
- The government is too big, too expensive and largely in the way
- That the Western world was founded on Christian principles which are generally based in common sense and therefore is a good system of values upon which to operate a free prosperous societies.
- That Christian values are in tune with the empowerment of the individual and therefore fit with the traditional American value of self-reliance.

I could on, but I think you get the point.

Just as there are fringe elements in all things, there are probably some Atheists who make noise about shutting you down, but then you are on a fringe making noise here and now to shut me down.

You are radical and I am not. Which logically leads to the proper assumption that you are insane and I am not. Radicalism is a form of insanity based in obsession which is fuzzy thinking.

Stick your ANECDOTAL internet stories up your nose,JW, data trumps personal stories and fake outrage. You've just attempted to use a Liberal debate tactic and failed miserably.

If I have hurt your feelings I don't care; this is war, and your atheist friends are collateral damage.

I mean seriously: "some of my best friends are atheist and they're tooooootally not like that" is not an argument appropriate for adults.

Andrew one more point of your luncacy.

To Lump Ayn Rand institute in with the loons at the ACLU tell me you know nothing about either group.

The ACLU is a collectivist model for totalitarian rule. There is no freedom in that perverted organization. They are about a sick and commie as it gets.

Ayn Rand's philosophy is based in individualism. Freedom, Capitalism, Small government and private sector in everything that can possibly be in the private sector. It is similar to Libertarianism with some exceptions.

The ACLU is alway at bat for child molesters, traitors, abortionists and worse.

Rand wouldn't bother to defend any of this scum. Controlling others is not what Objectivism is about.

If you knew what you are talking about, I wouldn't need to explain this to you.

Now get back under your bed with your bible and your gun and shut the f**k up.

"To Lump Ayn Rand institute in with the loons at the ACLU tell me you know nothing about either group."

Except I didn't do that, idiot, the Church of Satan did, I WAS MERELY QUOTING THEM YOU RETARD DUHDUHDUHDUH!!!!!!

Why do people even bother arguing with me? Has anyone ever successfully proven me wrong, ever? No. So stop trying and start listening.

Now get back under your bed with your bible and your gun and shut the f**k up.

This is my favourite part: the atheist brain is so weak that it breaks when confronted with a non-Christian opponent. No matter how many times (4? 5?) I tell these guys I am not Christian they simply cannot comprehend it.

I love breaking atheist brains.

And you haven't hurt my feelings. I am amused by your incredible fear. You are so afraid that the Atheists and Muslims and 'others' are going to take away your childish belief system that you are on here making a nuisance and a fool of yourself.

It is you who are hurt and wounded and scared. I like that about you.

It's amazing that this thread is still going.

Let me just point out a couple of things.

Atheism comes in a variety of views. Atheistic existentialism of Jean Paul Sartre is different from Bertand Russell's, and that is different from Ayn Rand's. There are many different forms of atheism, and they are much more divergent from each other than, say, different denominations of Christianity.

Satanism is a radically dissenting cult of Christianity. Some old gnostic religions presented Satan from a different point of view, a bit like the view from The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis.

Back in the 1960s some guy had an acid flash and started a church called the Processians based on the idea that since we are instructed to love our enemies, we should love Satan since Satan is God's enemy. Really, for one to be a Satanist, one would have to believe in Christ; one simply would choose Satan as the deity to worship.

There is a devil worshipping cult in the Middle East that worships Satan because they way they look at it, Jesus is a nice guy so you don't have to worry about him, but Satan is a horrible bully, and so you have to continually worship and placate him or else he will be after you for the slightest caprice.

One of the problems with intelligent design (and I believe in a sort of teleological view) is that strictly from a Christian view, our physical universe general, and our earth specifically, is a fallen world -- i.e. the whole business with Lucifer and the angels and the war in heaven... or alternatively the whole business with Adam and Eve and being chased from the Garden of Eden.

This means that the Intelligent Designer intentionally designed the capacity for a fallen world that acts with never-ending possiblilites for torment of its inhabitants.

Needless to say, a fallen world where we are forced to dwell because of the intentional design by an Intelligent Designer or the neglect of the Designer to close a loophole is not something that most of us would applaud. It is a very pessimistic and gloomy idea.

However, there are a variety of theological ways of looking at this that change the scenario considerably. For example, in the rabbinical Kaballah the Garden of Eden and Paradise is sometimes seen as a metaphor for a higher state of consciousness, a celetial state of consciousness similar to that which the angels enjoy.

And the Fall is seen as a devolutionary development from that high state of celestial consciousness into a mundane one that ordinarily only has access to the temporal milieu.

It's really quite interesting.

"You are so afraid that the Atheists and Muslims and 'others' are going to take away your childish belief system"

Again, notice the anti-Christ hate so typical of - nay, essential to - the atheist.

Strap on your vest and embrace your hate, John!

Mr. West,

So what you're getting at is that tolerance (the reason we're here) is something practiced my moderates and not radical ideologues?

I've been trying to figure out Andrew's politics from this whole thread and what I can determine is that he is a "Hard Right Religious Republican" type but isn't Christian. He's against moderation in the Conservative Party and therefore is detrimental to the cause of the centre-right in Canada. He egged me on all day yesterday, but from reading everything back, all I can tell about him is that he is unbalanced in some way.

Just a pleasant word of warning, he is unbalanced and a troll. Not your typical lberia or alby troll, but one from the opposite side of the spectrum. It's not worth arguing with him because black and white are how he sees things.

Actually you and John West come off as the least tolerant people around here, Jon. You've insulted Christians like a dozen times in this thread, entitled "Tolerance". Pretty "ironic", eh?

He's a poser Jon, pretending to be something he isn't. Probably laughing his ass off too as he does it.

Back to watching Bill Hicks clips...

Of course there's nothing more pissed off than an atheist who has lost a loved one. Neal Peart went squirrelly when his kid and wife died and he's been on a hardcore anti-Christian kick ever since as evidenced by Rush lyrics.

I'll ask once, that direct name calling and F-bombs etc. be nixed, or you will be deleted. You know the rules folks, so play by them.

Andrew I said "your childish belief system" not the belief system of true Christians. They are generally a civilized lot of reasonable kind people. You could learn from them. This is my last item to you who are less than nothing.

I get the feeling that Andrew would be more at home in a radical Mosque, or on David Koresh's compound, than he would be in a laboratory or a classroom. I'm not sure whether to be amused by his antics, or frightened by the fact that fanatics like him still exist even in western nations.

Gentlemen, I've already moved on to the next thread. Please, come join me.

I only have two problems with atheism. One is that it presumes to know what is unknowable, and, as a result, anyone who declares him or her self to be an atheist is being both arrogant and ignorant, just as those on the extreme religious other end of the spectrum can be accused of similar unflattering descriptives. The second is there doesn't seem to be an adequate word in the English language that those who don't believe in the biblical (or any other religiously based) version of a deity. Believe me, I have explored them all (words, that is) and have yet to find one that adequately describes my beliefs.

But then maybe that's the essence of whatever god or creative force there might be out there, whatever you want to call it, in the ever expanding universe. It is beyond description. Lord knows (no pun intended), philosophers and theologians have filled reams and reams of library shelves with treatises on the subject and we are still no closer to knowing. If we were, this thread wouldn't be as long as it is, or as vitriolic.

We were talking earlier that social problems should be dealt with by shaming (facial tattoos and abortions etc.) rather than government intervention. I was hoping this same principle could be used to deal with our (ir)rational sock puppet friend.

Louise,

The problems with Theologians is that they no nothing of your soul, or personal beliefs. Broad descriptors of beliefs are never accurate. Christian can describe anyone who likes getting chocolate at easter and presents at christmas, to the Westboro Baptists. Conservative likewise is an unholy marriage of tax cutters and traditionalists

jon, I take the time to post a reasonable point of view, with documentation, and you ignore nearly all of what I say.

Re you make lots of money. Fine. Just fine. However, the infrastructure of this country is based on taxes--which, BTW, are based on the number of productive citizens who can be fleeced--and that infrastructure, which very much supports your fine lifestyle, simply won't be there, if things continue in Canada the way they are now.

I wrote a while ago, which you don’t seem to be aware of (it’s a long thread): "In total sync with all of this is the entitlement of the worst elements of society and, as disrespect for both morals and law becomes the norm, a precipitous slide into barbarism. (Visit some public schools, Andrew, or walk down the street of any big city. If you dare, drive on our roads and highways!)" I think most of us could add to the list all kinds of barbarisms we see on a daily basis.

I've been a teacher for over 30 years. The difference in the behaviour of the kids and their parents is shocking. Teachers are at the mercy of any dishonest miscreant who wants to get the teacher in trouble. The kids' (especially if they're from minority, now privileged groups) words are sacrosanct. I personally know of two fine teachers (neither a Christian), whose careers are on hold due to trumped up hearsay charges from the lowest common denominator students.

And, you, jon, say that freedom is important to you. You never make any comment about the predicament in which I and many other Christians now find ourselves: publicly exercise our freedom of speech rights (sic) and lose our jobs.

In your ivory tower--that's figurative language, jon--where you're obviously above the cut and thrust that many of us in the trenches have to deal with, it seems that you're unaware of the serious loss of freedoms which is impacting many fine citizens in this country. You say you care about our freedoms: so, please respond with substance to the issues I've introduced.

Louise,

I am described as Atheist, but I do not consider that I am arrogant. I simply do not know how we got here or why. I can live with that mystery. I do not need to know for sure. It is not relevant to my little life here on planet earth. I think the arrogance is with those who claim to know what's what for sure without a shred of proof.

Lookout,

I agree with you. It's part of the overbearing nanny state that we live in that prevents those who are seen as privileged for speaking their point of view.

I have no problem speaking about ID with you, I have no problem speaking about Jesus with you and that is a conscious choice that we can make between two adults. Preaching to a captive audience forced by law to attend (school children in Public system), I think is wrong. I had teachers tell me that all serbs were murderers, and I was suspended in High School for wearing a Tshirt that said "Ban the OSSTF, Strikes Hurt Kids". Matters of fact should be taught, matters of opinion (religion being one of them) should be presented in a way to develop cognitive thinking skills.

Your rights, and my rights have been eroded by liberal activist judges and human rights kangaroo courts. However, many speak of the lack of their religious rights (most of those seem to be taking rights of abortion away from women). Your rights should not, and do not, include the ability to tell someone else what to do with their body.

On abortion, we can change the law making a fertilized egg a human, and any willful termination of that human is murder. But as of now that is not the law, nor is there any political will to make it the law, so you'll have to either pay women not to have abortions, or move to South America where they have both the strictest anti abortion laws, and the highest rate of women dying because of botched back alley abortions (see Abortions in the Economist).

Funny enough you said Ivory tower as a figure of speech. I live in a tower near Stanley Park that has all sorts of fake ivory trimmings.

Personally, I don't think you should have to deal with public schools. I'm more of a tuition voucher/education of choice sort of person. In my ideal world you could tell all the students you want any of your Christian myths or beliefs, because it was the parents choice to send the student to your school. You currently operate in the public sphere, and are therefore subject to the whim of political correctness. Sorry to break this to you, but that's the life you chose as a teacher. I'm sure you also signed a contract saying you wouldn't preach at work. I know I didn't, but that's because I read the fine print.

Also, if we're all so conservative, why not make the roads and infrastructure private? Why not have road operating firms that charge you based on your road use? Sewage companies that charge you for the number of times you flush? Currently we have to subsidize those who do not want to or cannot pay just because we can.

Lookout,

Is something only substantial if you agree with the answer?

Regarding the Church of Satan and "psychic vampires": I found it interesting that even those Satanists have to have recourse to a standard of good and evil, with "psychic vampires" being their term for the evil.

Hey Louise, the word you are looking for is Deism or deist. Thomas Jefferson and many of the US's founding fathers were deists. God created the universe and after that had no hand in what happened in that universe.Thats where evolution comes into the picture...

It's funny -- Andrew claims to have never lost the debate, yet he simply moves the goalposts to suit his own positions.

What's even funnier? The number of intelligent people here that haven't caught on to such an amateurish ruse.

jon, that's more like it. Thanks.

Now . . .

1) I agree about the union: your T-shirt sounds just about right to me. BTW, the unions have been altogether useless re teachers sabotaged by political correctness.

2) Religion in the schools . . . much more virulent than it ever was when Canon What’s-His-Name visited for half an hour a week and we said the Lord’s Prayer and someone read a passage of Scripture each day—one can see how much “good” THAT did. Now we have feminism, gayism, Greenism, socialism (NDPism) preached relentlessly in the schools. No questioning. I’m in favour of Charter schools, BTW.

3) Abortion “rights”: semantics, jon. Yes, as there is no abortion law in Canada—the only Western country to have no restrictions on this “right”—if one can find a doctor at delivery-minus-an-hour-or-two to do the deed, no legal problem at all. An ethical problem? Might you concede that a term, as in 9-month, “foetus” should perhaps have some protection in law? (As you’d conjecture, I think the protection, if we’re talking “human rights”, should start far earlier. And hasn’t the abortion “right” beautifully enhanced the pleasure principle for men in our society? The feminists really blew this one.)

Re the science: the moment of conception, when our DNA is set for our complete lives, is when the sperm and ovum unite—hence, barrier methods. The LIFE created at that split second is none other than human. It’s not a fox or an acorn, jon, and the life of every single one of us started at that very second, when (unless we’re the test tube variety) our parents were doing “you know what”! And, unless it’s rape, the act which might end in conception is a choice—a choice which can now be “handled”—sex ed classes are set up for just this purpose. So why are you so predisposed to remove the responsibility for this choice away from the agents who made it onto the vulnerable human life, which pays by being snuffed out?

4) You also say, “Your rights should not, and do not, include the ability to tell someone else what to do with their body”. Rubbish, jon. The law tells all of us all kinds of things we can and cannot do with our bodies, unless we want to be subject to sanctions. E.g., DO stop at red lights and STOP signs, DO send your kids to school, DO abide by the speed limits, etc.; DON’T steal, DON’T murder people, DON’T rape, DON’T drink and drive, etc. (Honestly, I’m surprised a person, as obviously intelligent as you seem to be, would fall for such utopian sophistry.)

5) As I said, I’m all in favour of Charter schools. But, as a teacher, that’s not my decision. You say, “Sorry to break this to you, but that's the life you chose as a teacher. I'm sure you also signed a contract saying you wouldn't preach at work.” WRONG.

When I started teaching, political correctness was barely a gleam in the most jaded superintendent’s eye—they’re not philosophers or academics—and I’ve signed no such pledge. And, do you think I should be forced to do such a thing—“ Your rights should not, and do not, include the ability to tell someone else what to do . . .”—if I’m doing my job with a high degree of competence and my views on political issues have nothing at all to do with the performance of my duties?

You’re a libertarian, right? Your apparent willingness to see my freedom of religion and expression rights abrogated because you disagree with my world view somewhat undercuts your credibility. I thought that, even if you disagreed with me, you’d be willing to fight for my right to believe what I like. (I detect little of that zeal in your posts, jon.)

6) Your last point: I am in some agreement with you. I’d like to see far more scrutiny of public contracts and far more services placed in the private—competing—sector. However, your “me in my small corner” take is bad theology because it’s altogether self-serving and selfish. There is such a thing—and it’s a good thing—as COMMUNITY. Pooling resources, in a reasonable manner, which serves both those who have a lot and those who have less is a good idea. (As I said, within reason: our society’s gone way beyond that.) Under your scheme, families with children—I believe you have an ex-wife, no kids, and a girlfriend—with less disposable income than people like you, but benefiting you by providing the necessary next generation, at great personal cost, would pay far more on a per-use basis. As you can tell, I altogether reject many particulars of this model.

jon, this is debate. Thanks for the opportunity.

Cheers.

Facetious question, jon. Please see my response to you.

I'm just wondering, if people evolved, did man and woman evolve at the exact same time in order to be in a position to pro-create.

I believe the problem people have with Christians is that they do not want people of a belief system dictating to them what is right or what is wrong when they do not follow the laws and statues of the Bible. These people want to be free to do as they please. This is all fine and dandy, but there is no need for the rights of Christians to be taken away just so they can do as they please. There is a certain path people take which leads them to the destruction of one's self and society, and this path has been travelled over and over again. The demise of great civilizations have fallen because of it; Rome has always been a good example. Our society today is heading down the same well-travelled path, and to ignore this truth and to stand by and watch it happen knowing the outcome beforehand is foolish. We are suppose to learn from the mistakes of others, not be hell bent on repeating them.

I'd like to point out that in the Bible, every seven years slaves were to be set free.

Nope. Sorry Lakeguy. Deism as defined in my reference books, doesn't quite do it. Believe me, I've undertaken many excursions through dictionaries, thesauri and encyclopedia trying to find an appropriate word.

For example, my Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms gives me this:

Deist: freethinker, atheist, agnostic, unbeliever, infidel

Free thinker is too broad and can encompass a vast array of ideas about God, including atheism. Atheist, as I've already covered, is way too cock sure. Agnostic comes closest, but it still appears to be focused on whether or not the person so declared to be an agnostic believes in the Judeo-Christian biblical thingy. The last two most certainly imply a rejector of a scriptural doctrine, which I am, but I'm not prepared to say there is no God, just because I reject scriptural doctrine.

My Webster's New World Dictionary defines deism, thus:

belief in the existance of a God on purely rational grounds without reliance on revelation or authority; esp. the the 17th and 18th cent. doctrine that God created the world and its natural lawas, but takes no further part in its functioning

I'm not sure if there is a "creator", regardless of what rational grounds one might apply. I believe rational thought may bring us closer to knowing, but we will never, ever know because there always be more questions to ask. And based on what I do believe, there is certainly no suggestion that "the force" is no longer at work. This too suggests a scriptual sort of angle, namely that the "actor" or "agent" in the biblical story of creation and many other creation myths is just no longer in business, although s/he/it/they once were.

I've also given, in a whimsical sort of way, much credence to "the force" in the Star Wars series as being closest to what I believe. It is an unseen, unknowable force, unlike a physical force that can be studied by physicists, that is at work in the universe and always has been and always will be. But that still doesn't account for what happened to set off the Big Bang and how the Big Bang could have happened without some physical substance/matter involved and some physical "force" acting against that matter prior to the so called beginning of time. A ball of matter, no matter how big, can't just exist and suddenly explode. The dimensions of time and causation have to preceed it, ad infinitum. Then we have to ask, who or what created the force. See where I'm going?

Actually, Joanne, sexual reproduction "evolved" long before humans arrived. Even the dinosaurs reproduced sexually - there were males and females.

By definition, sexual reproduction is reproduction in which different individuals combine genetic material to produce offspring. This applies to a huge number of living organisms including, worms, plants and even some forms of algae.

John West at October 21, 2007 2:04 PM, do you describe yourself as atheist? Your belief sounds more like what I would call agnostic.

Well I'm not too stupid to learn from you ladies: speak in soft, fuzzy, warm tones in a circuitous manner, pretend you are a girl, and the atheist trolls disappear.

Good. To. Know.

On abortion, we can change the law making a fertilized egg a human, and any willful termination of that human is murder.

Murder/theft/assault is not wrong because it is illegal, it is illegal because it is wrong.

...so this bear walks into the bar...

Late in to this discussion and no time to read over 300 comments. I realize the original post was to bring our attention to a close minded rant...and I thought lberals were so open minded their brains fall out. Being intolerant has it's obvious effects.
I would add to the ID vs. evolution discussion that there are far rtoo many assumptions taken as 'foundation' for the theory of evolution.
And as some studious individuals have mentioned here science supports ID .
The incredible working of the individual cardiac(heart) cells alone are based on absolutes of chemistry, biology and electricty as well as physics.Science supports Creaton.
The human body is no accident. Chance is the basis of the theory of evolution.

Lookout,

2) Religion in the schools . . . To me feminism, gayism, Greenism, socialism (NDPism), deism, taoism, etc, are all philosophies to be dealt with in philosophy class. No use talking about Marxism without talking about objectivism. No use talking about Kierkegaard without also taking about Descartes and Camus. Anything preached relentlessly in the schools is wrong, except maybe the benefit of hard work. No questioning. I’m in favour of Charter schools, BTW.

3) Abortion “rights”: Honestly I like the pleasure principle, and I do not disagree with you that abortion is unethical. I do believe however that those ethics are mine to decide and if someone wants to put down their unborn baby they can, so long as they can deal with that ethically.

4) You also say, “Your rights should not, and do not, include the ability to tell someone else what to do with their body”. Stealing is taking from others, getting a drivers license is signing a contract such that you will not speed or D&D or run stoplights, and acquiring that contract is a choice. Murder is taking from others, and IMHO rapists deserve to be locked in 2'x2' boxes and blasted with Yanni music until they die. No death penalty though, I would never willingly give the state power that I would not give to an individual.

5) You did sign a contract with your union (if you're a public school teacher), and they in turn, collectively bargained for your rights now. If not maybe my anti union shirt was stupid, but CBA was a term used over and over and over again by my teachers when Harris was in charge.

"You’re a libertarian, right? Your apparent willingness to see my freedom of religion and expression rights abrogated because you disagree with my world view somewhat undercuts your credibility."

I think you're misreading what I wrote if you think I would stop you from speaking your mind, and teaching children that dinosaurs were buried by God and whatnot (joking?). I totally support your freedom of expression, but you signed it away by becoming a public school teacher, see above, union and contract and whatnot. I work at a remote construction camp (that's why I have to work 7 days a week and never drink), I signed my weekends and drinking privilages away when I accepted my job, which was my choice.

6) “me in my small corner”: How do you feel about the wheat board? Pooling resources, BY CHOICE, is totally fine. By law it leads to waste, corruption and people making decisions reliant on society to bail them out when they can't cut it or fail. Where I work there are no public roads, there is no sewer system, and I get private medical care. Where do my income taxes go? I can see public education (although grudgingly), I pay for the CF, and otherwise it seems to be a total waste. By charging people for their consumption of resources, you eliminate wastefulness. I disagree that I have to pay for someone elses sewage plant upgrades or flood insurance in order to build community. The community doesn't exist because I'm taxed to death, I'm taxed to death because community exists.

You chose to have children, you chose to flush the toilet, you chose to drive a big car, you chose to build your house in a flood plain. I have no patience for people wanting more back than they put in. You make your bed and you should have to sleep in it.

Child care allowance? Why? Don't have kids if you can't afford them.
Clean injection sites? Why? Don't get addicted to heroin if you can't afford clean needles.

Both heroin and children are choices. They both make you sicker than you would be otherwise, and drive you to behaviour that others in society would find to be bizarre; babytalk for example... for both I guess.

I always enjoy speaking with you.

Please forgive the lateness of my reply. I am unfortunately at work... and not drunk.

*
Yeah... let's talk sophisticated, metrosexual U of T.

I'm thinkin'... you might not wanna have your parents visit on Sado-Masochism day...

"Visiting lecturers will address technical aspects of flogging, restraint, and role-play."

"Students will 'research' questions (e.g. what constitutes coercion? consent? control?
submission? can sexual practices transform our understanding of power?) by the
optional performance of selected scenes."

*

"Both heroin and children are choices. They both make you sicker than you would be otherwise"

So to clarify, Jon the 20 year old atheist believes that children are comparable to heroin. Both heroin and children make you "sick".

And we wonder why we are going extinct. Yeeeesh.

Then there's this:

"Honestly I like the pleasure principle, and I do not disagree with you that abortion is unethical. "

So we have an admission that abortion is "unethical". However...

"I do believe however that those ethics are mine to decide and if someone wants to put down their unborn baby they can, so long as they can deal with that ethically."

Doing unethical things is OK, i.e. ethical, as long as you can "deal with that ethically."

Somebody bounce this infant.

Andrew,

Obviously context is not your forte.

The ID movement is is about information theory, not sacred text. Specifically its about prescriptive information (PI). Its not about univ's, cities, religion, nor creationism, but rather science. Catch up with the learning curve here:

Peer-reviewed and accepted July 2006
Physics of Life Reviews

Self-organization vs. Self-ordering events in Life-origin Models

by David Abel and Jack Trevors
Abstract:
Self-ordering phenomena should not be confused with self-organization. Self-ordering events occur spontaneously according to natural "law" propensities and are purely physicodynamic. Crystallization and the spontaneously forming dissipative structures of Prigogine are examples of self-ordering. Self-ordering phenomena involve no decision nodes, no dynamically-inert configurable switches, no logic gates, no steering toward algorithmic success or "computational halting".
Here:
Hypercycles, genetic and evolutionary algorithms, neural nets, and cellular automata have not been shown to self-organize spontaneously into nontrivial functions. Laws and fractals are both compression algorithms containing minimal complexity and information. Organization typically contains large quantities of prescriptive information. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces nontrivial optimized algorithmic function at its destination. Prescription requires choice contingency rather than chance contingency or necessity. Organization
requires prescription, and is abstract, conceptual, formal, and algorithmic. Organization utilizes a sign/symbol/token system to represent many configurable switch settings. Physical switch settings allow instantiation of nonphysical selections for function into physicality. Switch settings represent choices at successive decision nodes that integrate circuits and instantiate cooperative management into conceptual physical systems. Switch positions must be freely selectable to function as logic gates. Switches must be set according to rules, not laws. Inanimacy cannot "organize" itself. Inanimacy can only self-order. "Self-organization" is without empirical and prediction-fulfilling support. No falsifiable theory of self-organization exists. "Self-organization" provides no mechanism and offers no detailed verifiable explanatory power. Care should be taken not to use the term "self-organization" erroneously to refer to low-informational, natural-process, self-ordering events, especially when discussing genetic information.(2006)

And here:
Only one observed exception would be required
to falsify the following null hypothesis:

“Stochastic ensembles of physical units
cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic/computational
halting function.”

Self-ordering events are physicodynamic. Organization is formal. Physicality has no ability to
perform formal functions. Physicality possesses
no capability of
self-organizing itself.

Someone's late to the party ;-)

I remember, about a decade ago, a nasty little situation where the CBC went after Stockwell Day because he allegedly believed in a 6 day creation. That sent the Liberals into the playpen to steal all the Barny the Dinosaur toys they could find. Until then I had never questioned evolution, like so many people I assumed that it was a "fact."

But I was so offended by the CBC's attack on the religion (yes, Virginia, it was a "hate crime") of Day and many other Christians, Jews, and Moslems that I decided to look into the evidence. I had met Stockwell and he's no dummy, plus there are a lot of other people far more intelligent and informed than I, who are also skeptical of the "neo-Darwinian synthesis", including a large number of non-religious, even atheistic, scientists.

After a decade of rather intense study I am convinced that the "neo-Darwinian synthesis" is bunk. The only thing that makes it compelling as a theory is that the assumtion that "matter" or "nature" is all that exists. It is a creation story for philosophical materialism. It answers the question, "If there is no God how did we get here?"

However, even philosophical materialists must invoke "miracles" to account for life, the universe, and everything. Right from the beginning. The Big Bang theory tells us how everything "just created itself from nothing." Stars, galaxies, planets, life, etc. all require similar invocations of the miraculous.

But don't take my word for it - check it out for yourself.

Dave

Been there, done that Dave. The evidence in science including archeology, history and astronomy support the Creation story and Scripture.
Thanks for your story too. If Kinsella's rant spurned others to investigate, it's alright.

jon, I appreciate your response, but don't find it reasonable.

Children are a societal "good" (though present standards of behaviour taken into account, that may be open to question!): by your "me in my small corner" philosophy, which rejects the idea of COMMUNITY, by which democracy works, in your old age, you'd have to decline both your pension—which depends on the present earnings of the next generation you opted out of producing—and, I guess, whatever societal goods are available via the taxes collected from this demographic. jon, it's not just a one way—“What I do is just for me”—street.

You said that I said: “Your rights should not, and do not, include the ability to tell someone else what to do with their body”. No, jon, YOU said that. I was quoting you.

Re abortion: remember, the human beings whose lives are brutally terminated—check out the ways we kill them—are quite separate from the women in whose wombs they rest (unfortunately, often, in pieces): so, by your own standard—“Your rights should not, and do not, include the ability to tell someone else what to do with their body”—the woman should not be allowed to dispose of another human being’s body, just because she has the so-called “right” to exercise such raw power over another.

The fact that our society has condoned the barbarism of abortion and euphemizes this brutality by defining it as a right—which the non-discerning, me-for-myself citizen falls for—is a strong indictment of our present, Godless age.

Remember, too, jon, by your own logic, unless the mother was raped, she CHOOSE to involve herself in a behaviour which quite often leads to pregnancy. So, why should the state both allow her to shift the onus onto her unborn child, who ends up dead—burned, cut up, or extracted alive and prematurely from the womb to be left in a bedpan to gasp for breath until death occurs—and make the rest of us pony up the $$ for the likes of Morgentaler?

By your own logic, jon, you should be out there actually campaigning against abortion. (You might even throw in that, yes, it is unethical.)

“Long ago, in a galaxy far away” I once signed a contract with a school board, which has changed philosophy 180 degrees. I did not sign on to that. I’m a very fine teacher and, despite the many obstacles the board puts in my way and that of my colleagues, I benefit the children I teach in multiple ways. Easier said than done, to just quit. As I said, if my negative opinions of my employer's politics—all left-wing, all the time—do not impact my performance—the board’s lucky I don’t subscribe to the victim mentality it endorses for students, where low standards are considered OK—I should be allowed to freely express my opinions on certain issues of concern to society outside of school. I’m not allowed. Re the union, I’ve NEVER signed a union contract: the law requires me to be a member. Freedom of choice? Nope. THAT also seems to be a fact of my life which should concern you if you really mean what you say. (E.g., It seems that you should be putting the onus to do something differently on the very controlling, very political—secular religion, left-wing—boards and unions, not me.)

Make that CHOSE!

Okay, so we agree that atheists have a much higher abortion rate than normal people, we all know that.

What doesn't receive as much attention is the sky-high suicide rates of atheists. Is atheism correlated with suicide? Oh yeah. Do I have data and links to document this. Why, yes, yes I do:

"Religion and suicide:

Persons who attend religious services, on average, are generally believed to exhibit much lower rates of suicide. "Those who attend church frequently are four times less likely to commit suicide than those who never attend." 3,7 This affect is seen in various studies which compare church attendance and suicide rates:
bullet Over time: "...fluctuations in church attendance rates in the 1970s paralleled the suicide rates for different subgroups: whites, blacks, men, and women." 4
bullet Among states in the U.S.: with varying attendance at religious services. 5
bullet Among countries worldwide. 6

"In fact, the rate of church attendance predicts the suicide rate better than any other factor (including unemployment, traditionally regarded as the most powerful variable)." 3

What is not known is the degree to which the increased rate of religious attendance and lower rates of suicide are directly related as cause and effect. Other influences may be present, that are unrelated to church attendance:
bullet Persons who are depressed are among the most likely to commit suicide, and are less likely to attend church, synagogue, mosque, temple, circle, etc.
bullet Homosexuals have one of the highest suicide rates of any group in society, and are often disinclined to attend church because of the degree of rejection and homophobia there.
bullet Attendance at religious services potentially gives individuals access to a support network. Those without a support network are most likely to commit suicide."

www.religioustolerance.org/sui_reli.htm

See also:

"According to a recent study published in The American Journal of Psychiatry religious affiliation is associated with significantly lower levels of suicide compared to religiously unaffiliated people, atheists and agnostics. Source: Kanita Dervic, Maria A. Oquendo, Michael F. Grunebaum, Steve Ellis, Ainsley K. Burke, and J. John Mann. "Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt" (161:2303-2308, December 2004)."

www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html