Science and Society

If the idiot Gary Baur thinks this is true, it must be false.

I believe you Ned. You are right though. It does keep coming back. And I'll keep on believing in science, which tells me I evolved from an ape. I did find it interesting that Bauer said that Darwinism is supported by atheists. Kind of sounds like he means that all supporters of this are atheists, and that it is "blind faith". He kind of hypocrasizes himself by saying this. Any religion, is based on "blind faith". There is no solid proof that God exists. The bible isn't one of them, it's a tome written by men long ago about God.

Anybody out there who believes super-dude breathed into a mud puddle and created man and then, performed unauthorized surgery on the poor fellow to create woman? Anybody? Anybody with a brain, that is.

Well-when I die, and my belief in God is false-then I will just be dead. If I am right, and athiests are wrong-then it will suck to be them!!!

Anyone who believes we evolved from apes without a single transitional species to be found (and there should be "countless" millions of them in the fossil record) is clearly operating on blind faith.

There are SO many gaps in evolutionary theory, how it is so widely accepted is miraculous. This movie will expose alot of truth that has been withheld for too long.

The answer is simple: All the ID adherents have to do is present some proof or evidence that they're correct, without resorting to the dogma of the bible. Just a little scientific method, if you please.

Yay! Magic and Superstition vs. Logic and Reasoning, yay!

Funny, I didn't peg Stein as a magic and superstition type of guy. Ah well.

Can't find transitional species? What fiction do these guys read? Who does your thinking for you?

Deny the obvious and believe that some loving god turned a curious woman into a pile of salt? Incredible! Absolutely incredible. It's all jibber-jabber that makes uninformed believers feel good when they can't pound a square shape into a circular hole.

Tom, there are many transitional species in the fossil record. If the process of fossilization were that simple we would have countless numbers of them, but unfortunately everything that dies is not fossilized. More often than not scavengers, bacteria, insects and weather destroy a corpse long before it can be fossilized. That and our common ancestors didn't like living in deserts or in areas prone to landslides (as it is dangerous) so they weren't often preserved by natural events.

Shame on you Ned Potter for reporting
this as a straight news story.
You're a "science" reporter for pete's
sake. There is no issue here--ID is
a philosophy with no evidence to back
it up.

If flat earthers were protesting the
teaching of a spherical earth, no one
would treat them seriously. So why
is abcnews taking the ID folks
seriously?

Again, shame on you Ned Potter -- how
about standing up for science and
rationality?

Of course there are transitional fossils found! Any student of the subject would know this. And we really are beginning to collect an impression collection of human/hominid fossils stretching way back. Of course, every time a new fossil is found we create another "gap." So the abundance of gaps in the fossil record is a testimony to the abundance of fossils we have found, a huge amount of evidence.

The evidence is not only in the fossil record itself, but also in our own DNA.

I am a former creationist. I have not lost faith in God one little bit, but I have lost faith in creationism and the pseudo-science that is done in the name of God. None of it is real science, none of it follows the evidence to come to a conclusion, but all of it, all of the evidence and interpretation of it in creationism is bent to a predetermined conclusion. Lying is pretty much an all-the-time event, including lying about what science says, what science is, what science does, and why it does it. These lies are blatant and fill their literature. They take what scientists say and remove the context and twist the words to make it appear that they are saying something else or admitting to something they are not. They easily ignore anything that does not agree with their predetermined position, and continue to repeat arguments or claim as evidence things which have been conclusively shown to be false.

Dawkins was absolutely right to be incensed by the trickery of these hypocrites. True Christians would have been straightforward and honest in their dealings. The interviews in the picture were stolen by lies.

So please, fellow Christians, forgive me when I say that no good thing can come from this. Any philosophy or position which must be supported by lying is corrupt, and creationism is about as corrupt as it is possible to get. Hmmm. Now what punishment did Christ say would be handed out to "workers of iniquity" who claimed to follow him?

I have no problem with evolutionism if it is taught as a THEORY.

So Deb -- what's your definition of a theory?

This from a staunch atheist: Thanks, Raymond, for a breath of fresh and honest air. I believe as you do, that the creationists violate the truth (in every sense of the word) and twist it. I don't believe for a minute they have an agenda, though. Their methodology is so corrupt and fanciful that they haven't the wit to defend it properly.

All of Creation proves there is a God because evolution theories have done a very poor job to explain the origin of life and they have found no missing chains. So we don't even need a Bible to see there is a God but the documented history recorded in the Bible also proves there is a God. The Bible describes two great dinosaurs showing that they were created at the same time man was created and to this very day we can follow the route that Moses took when he led the children of Israel out of Egypt all the way across the "Sinai peninsula" which is Egypt and the crossing of the red sea together with markers that Solomon placed on each side and traces of Pharaoh's army in the sea. The route can be followed all the way to the real mount Sinai complete with the caves of Moses and the cave also used by Elijah as well as other sites. It is all there to this day virtually untouched. Then there is the issue of the accuracy of the prophets and the predictions of Messiah which have pointed to Messiah Yeshua (Jesus).

I would say a theory would be an explanation, not the end all be all. Humans are just that-humans, and thinking can be flawed. Okay Andy-why is it that creationists are the only ones who are corrupt? So much arrogance...

I knew it wouldn't last. Sigh.

Andy -- the motive is $$$$. Those who write the creationist nonsense make fortunes selling their silly assertions to those who want to believe. It's VERY BIG BUSINESS and the concern over anyone's soul is obviously of little importance in the larger scheme of things.

Funny though -- I serously doubt that the folk who believe this tripe have actually read the bible. Most are truly shocked by the rubbish within.

Even after Messiah there is more proof of God in the Bible that says every Island will fall into the seas. (Islands sit on long tall columns that rise from the ocean floor.) And the Bible also speaks of a flesh eating disease that will aflict people while they are standing.

I'm reminded of Elmer Gantry, and the rest of the religious hucksters who purport to take care of the poor. They seem to have plenty of money for jets and fine homes, etc. They are the poor - poor in spirit. They don't practice what they preach.

It would be interesting to see what this film reveals. If no one has seen it, then one can't give a "logical and reasonable" critique of it yet. ID is not about science. And people who believe in God know that He is not about magic. I found a copy of The Descent of Man on my bookshelf last night. I didn't even know I had it. I've started to read it and some of Darwin's writing seems disjointed. I have to read more, but I also believe there is (not was) an evolutionary process on the earth and it is still going on. Besides history, a lot in the Bible is metaphor, or figurative. People of faith know how to interpret its message just as scientists know how to deduce their principles from hypotheses (which are guesses). If you don't believe that God is behind the creation of the universe, after which we know that life evolved on the planet Earth, so be it. I think it's just amazing that only the planet Earth has such life and varied species, and climates and changes of seasons, and evolution, and people who can form ideas etc. etc. Scientific proof depends on the physcial, but faith is metaphyscial. Neither one of them should be trashed.

Andy, there are thousands of legitimate ministries and you would defame them all because of the few that have been caught stealing money? That is not being very honest and it doesn't change the truth. Evolutionist have had decades to come up with some proof and they have nothing to show for all the money they have spent. They have proven nothing.

...and people!!! The Bible has described two different kinds of dinosaurs that have only relatively recently been discovered. The Bible has been describing these two dinosaurs that were created the same time as man written 5000 years ago!!! Evolution is a total disgrace!

Daleri, I don't recall using the word 'all.' Those to whom I refer know who they are. Such pious luminaries as Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, and their bretheren.

Deb
"Well-when I die, and my belief in God is false-then I will just be dead. If I am right, and athiests are wrong-then it will suck to be them!!!"

But what if the Hindoes were right? Or the ancient Norse? Or the Aztecs? Sucks to be you then

"Ben Stein, the TV personality, writer, actor, lawyer, economist, and speechwriter for Presidents Nixon and Ford"

In related news, a guy who's been a baker, architect and cardealer will talk about how modern medical science is wrong and evil for society

(I'm being sarcastic)

Andy, those con artists are long gone. There may still be a few more but they will be found out. The Bible says so. Still there are many ministries that even send food, drill water wells, take care of unwanted babies as much as the law allows etc.

The attacks on Andy are relevant to the issues presented here. Andy's words have been distorted by people who feel they have to defend what they believe at all costs.

Did Andy use the word "all" to put down every religious ministry? No. He did talk about "the rest of the religious hucksters who purport to take care of the poor." There *are* a great deal of religious hucksters, and while there are indeed thousands of legitimate ministries, even good Christian leaders acknowledge that these frauds hurt the testimony of all the rest. What is disturbing is that even after a "ministry" has been found to be corrupt, many of its adherents will continue to support it on the basis of faith or "God's will." This makes Christians look silly and stupid.

Daleri says that "Evolution is a total disgrace" without any real knowledge of what evolution is, how it is defined in science, and the rationale behind it. This is typical of many people of faith (not all of them, mind you!) who do not wish their viewpoints to be challenged by facts, but are willing without knowledge or evidence to tar other viewpoints and those who hold them as being completely evil.

But what people of faith do not understand is that if they wish to communicate their message of the Love of God, then such blind hatred of others is surely the wrong way to go about it. And blind support of those who lie in God's name is the wrong way to demonstrate the truthfulness of their position.

Science isn't perfect. We don't claim it to be. It is a methodical way of collecting information and correlating it into a coherent body of knowledge. It doesn't use "revelation" -- by its very nature it cannot. It has to follow the evidence. The very willingness of science to alter positions in any area where clear evidence indicates that it must is proof of its generally honest frame of mind. Scientists who lie about the evidence are routinely exposed and their work held up to intense scrutiny -- by other scientists! Those who perpetuate frauds don't last too long.

I suggest that Daleri and other creationists who wish to challenge those who support evolution to define their terms and talk about evolution honestly and without hysteria. Let them present their evidence (and where to find it!). Tell us what bothers them. Let them listen to coherent explanations and learn what the subject actually says - not what some preacher tells them it says! There are plenty of people who work in evolutionary fields that are believers!

To be quite honest, the creationist leaders have wound up driving a lot of people from the faith by their lies and dishonest tactics. Is it too much to think that being completely open and honest is the more appropriate way to do the work of the Lord?

jnnttlc

Well said, my sentiments as well. But I would like to remind you of our prior posts. "Descent of Man", while interesting from a historical viewpoint, is very dated. It is Darwin's original hypothesis, not accepted as the theory of evolution. Darwin was not aware of our true relationship to the other great apes but he put us on the right track. On the other hand, "Origin of Species" is the basis for the theory of evolution, and while it has many dating errors, is still a valid text. These books are a bit difficult to read because of Darwin's writing style but worth the effort.

Daleri, I'm assuming the columns you are talking about are something like the Greek columns that supported the Parthenon. This is entirely incorrect. Science has proven that islands, including Atolls, are formed volcanically. This is done by what are known as hot spots. These are weak areas in the main tectonic plate where magma, or lava, can get through. It bubbles up and erupts long enough to form an island. Science has seen this happen. Stating that islands are supported by columns, is just plain wrong.

As for the decades of work done by science and we've got nothing to show for it? Well thats wrong too. I'm guessing you mean evolutionary science, and not all sciences, because that would make you look like you live in a cave and a hypocrit at the same time because you are using a computer. Science has found numerous, countless millions of fossils supporting evolution. Yes there are gaps. But as stated before, not every dead animal gets fossilized or mummified. I do agree that evolution is a theory, but it is largely supported by many, many, many observations. ID or Creationism is not.

As for your dinosaur and human walking together theory. Can you give me a place in the Bible where it is stated? I'll go read it. Also, if humans and dinosaurs were indeed alive at the same time, why hasn't any human remains been found in the same geologic strata as dinosaurs? Or any mammal bigger than a dog for that matter? Thats because we weren't alive during that time. If we were, we'd have record of it, with fossils, and we'd have some sort of written record of it, in multiple locations around the world in cave paintings and perhaps even some written on stone tablets.

Deb
A Theory is more than a Hypothesis and less than a Law. The Law is "etched in stone", the Hypothesis is unproven, the Theory is a proven hypothesis but not "etched in stone", ie. the theory is an evolving concept that has valid proofs.
Hope that helps.

Thanks for the defense, guys, but my only gripe is with those who spout the bible as absolute proof, yet chide the evolutionists for "spouting evolution as dogma." That's hypocrisy of the first water.
Sticks and stones, etc.

How can you criticize a film that hasn't even been released yet?? And once it IS released, are you guys all going to go SEE it before you comment on it?

Have you read up on the intelligent design vs. evolution debate, or are you just speaking from personal bias and ignorance? Most of these comments don't sound like the posters have put any thought into this debate at all.

It seems like many people who accept evolution just respond with "Nope... no... not listening" whenever anyone disagrees with them, instead of listening to what they have to say. Why are people so defensive about this? It's supposed to be science we're debating about, and honest science eventually proves out the truth, so why be afraid of real debate about this?

Lawrence
He is talking about Dragons, we went through this with Daleri in a previous blog. - Good Luck!

Oh, I'm not afraid of a real debate Lori. I actually want to hear the other sides story. But I would like to see their evidence. So far, I've seen very little, and that evidence can't stand up to science. I will listen, it is the other side, I have found, that for the most part says "Nope, no, not listening." There are exceptions to this though, as always.

Lori
Have a look in the recent archives for this column. Most of the names that you see in reply to this blog you will also find in recent related blogs. This is indeed an ongoing, and well researched, argument.

Yea, I figured that Quiet, but I'd still like to see it in the Bible, that way I know what he's talking about, instead of just hearing it. It could be another animal that has been known to exist, and died out only a few thousand years ago. I just don't know, not untill I look it up, and I need to know where exactly in the Bible he's getting this information from.

The point here is that these "academicians" feel that they were "punished" punished for taking positions promoting creationism. In science, you are only "punished" for doing bad science. If someone puts forth credible scientific evidence favoring creationism, then they would be able to get it published. Since no such evidence has yet been found, do these people think they should get published anyway just out of "fairness?" That's not how science works.

Quietman:
I've ordered The Upright Ape. Looking forward to reading it.

Bravo, Raymond. Very well said.

Lori,
Real science is debated in the scientific literature, not on films by actors.

Lawrence
Yes - we did discuss that concept and talked a little of cryptozoology as well. But it lead us nowhere. Personally I think that the myth of the dragon stems from varanids such as Megalania.
But if you and Andy want to pursue the argument further that's OK by me. :)

Debate #24

"I didn't peg Stein as a magic and superstition type of guy."

Stein is someone, like Anne Coulter, who is not nearly as stupid as he seems. He's just found that there's a good living to be made by shilling for ring-wing positions. Anne Coulter is known to have had gay friends in her past even though she now makes bigoted statements. Ben Stein probably thinks creationists are idiots but knows that his bread can be buttered by pandering to them.

jnnttlc
If they send you the first printing there are corrections listed on his website. I did a copy and paste into Notepad, printed then and cut and paste them into my copy to avoid the problem when my family read the book. Hopefully you will get a newer printing. I think you will find it quite interesting.

cturple
I was starting to wonder why I had not seen your posts.

Come on, Ned, you know you love it! It's the only time the science page gets any attention. (Well, evolution and maybe climate change). But I think that's fine. Anything that gets people talking about science is a good thing in my book.

Everything is created from something.

Quietman, I'm not a dragon-follower. You have me confused with someone else, or my memory is farther gone than I remembered.
Jock59801, you're right. Even though some of the posts get a little far afield, it's a good and good-natured give-and-take. It's also surprising how much can be learned here, just from that give-and-take. I'm not sure which I like better: the science or the conversation.

Joe
E=mc2

I'm with Andy on this one. I do like the science, but the discussions and debate that happens here is all part of the fun as well. Quiet was right Andy, it was a few postings ago that the whole dragon thing was brought up. I'll have to do some back reading to get caught up. My 24 year old memory is failing me too....

Is the problem discussed whether God exists or that God created man?

Two completely different questions with two completely different answers.

Andy
Yes, you stopped posting before it got interesting. "Evolution - the Pushback"
by Ned this January.

Joe, what's a quark made of? Probably no one knows. Not peanut butter, for sure. There's still a whole lot of stuff we know nothing about. I'm gonna make a list. Maybe Lawrence and I can figure it out, if the dragons don't flame us.

It is wether God created man, Joe. I believe in God. But believe he just created the Universe and has just let it go on it's own, with strict rules governing what happened.

HAHA! Thats a great one Andy! Darn Dragons.

Heres my short list:
Tachyon Particles
Faster than Light Travel
T.O.E.
Evolution vs. Creationism
How to contain Antimatter
What is Dark Matter and Dark Energy

I just had a horrible thought. Ben Stein also fancies himself a kind of humorist. What if this was all an elaborate hoax, designed to stir up debate like this. We may all be the butt of some stupendous joke, and he's sitting there laughing up his sleeve at the lot of us. Somebody get a rope.

Joe
That has not been the issue per se. Many of us believe in god and accept the fact that evolution has and is happening. The argument is the literal truth of the bible (old testament only) versus an enlightened interpretation that does not have any conflict with modern beliefs.

A bad list, Lawrence. You already know something about those things, or can at least describe them. The real list would be an empty set.

jock,

I couldn't agree with you more, but sometimes film is an effective way to open up a discussion. It doesn't look like Ben Stein is out to prove intelligent design, rather to show how ardent evolutionists cannot tolerate opposition to their views.

Lawrence,

You asked for examples and proof, so here, I'll present one for you--a view which has long been held by creationists, and is now finally starting to be accepted by many evolutionists as well:

Creationists believe that many geological features were formed by catastrophic events, rather than millions of years of erosion and sedimentation. For example, they would say that the Grand Canyon was formed in a massive catastrophe, namely the flood of the Bible.

After the Mount Saint Helens eruption, a small canyon (about 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon) was formed in one day from a mudflow stemming from the eruption. Today, it has features like the Grand Canyon, including a small river flowing through the bottom of it, and thousands of layers of sedimentation. We now know that this can happen within a day, it does not take millions of years. A flood on the scale of the one described in the Bible, along with the associated eruptions and earthquakes, could have created the Grand Canyon in a very short time. (Incidentally, a flood of Biblical proportions would also explain the presence of so many marine fossils in the Canyon.)

This also demonstrates another important part of the debate--evolutionists and creationists often look at the same facts and interpret them in different ways. In this example, the Grand Canyon itself was the "fact", it was just interpreted more than one way. The sedimentary layers supported either theory; the marine fossils were explained either by a flood or by the presence of an ancient sea, depending which side of the argument you were on. More evidence was needed to prove out which interpretation was more likely.

So what is frustrating, is that evolutionists so often say "oh, you're a creationist, nothing you say is valid science, it's all blind faith" and science misses out on a lot of good insight because of personal bias closing off discussions.

I could bring up a lot more, but then my post would be pages long... and I'm sure I've already said enough to get jumped all over =)

Lori, I've seen longer posts than yours. That's what this is all about. If you have something to say, say it.

I originally posted to debate, but I agree completely, pretty much verbatium with Lawrence.

A quark is a composite fermion made of protons and neutrons. And it probably has more to do with peanut butter than you think.

Lori, I love you. If I wasn't already married, I'd marry you now. You're the first person to show me some quantifiable evidence for creationism. But not quite. The Great Flood the bible talks about is a rendition of a much older Syrian story, which in itself is also a rendition of a much older story. And besides that, the planet does not hold enough water to cover the entire planet. That and lack of giant flood evidence. But you do bring up a very valid point. That evidence can be interpretted both ways. Thank you.

Joe, I stand corrected. Thanks.
Lori, I reiterate what I said to you. But you might pause for a breath now and then.

Lori,

Scientists accept many instances of catastrophic geologic change; the great Pleistocene floods in eastern Washington being a spectacular example.

As you say, these could be superficially considered consistent with either an old-earth or young-earth argument. But fortunately we have a lot of other evidence that confirms the old-earth hypothesis as the correct one. Radio-isotopes can date the Earth fairly precisely at 4.6 billion years old. That is incontrovertible evidence. You would have to change the laws of physics to make that consistent with a young-earth hypothesis.

Can we all just please take a biology class? Just one? For everyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution (I don't "believe" either, I accept it as the best scientific explanation for observations of life on earth) - go ahead and live without all the medical advances that have been made BECAUSE of scientific understanding of evolution.

Joe - I think that protons and neutrons are made up of quarks rather than the other way around. I'm not sure what that has to do with either evolution or peanut butter, but it is certainly a good example of something that we have to take the scientists' word for, since none of us will ever see a quark or deduce its existance based on "common sense."

On one side of the scale put a bible
on the other put all the bones, core samples, carbon dated artifacts and all the animals that currently inhabit the earth. Does GOD exist? I don't know.
Did Darwin piece together a theory based on evidence collected from around the world? Yes. Is every mystery solved about how we got her..NO. But I don't feel sorry for the way the anti-Darwin/Evolution crowd is treated, they're just getting a small taste of the medicine they have served up since Darwin made his discoveries. No on from their side has ever been jailed or publicly ruined for their religious beliefs..John Scopes was jailed and may of those good Christians would have liked to have hanged him for the crime of thinking and using his mind to see something other than DOGMA. So What's up with "Thou shalt NOT KILL" it's just so inconvient not to be able to smite your ememies...So many contridictions.

If Ben Stein really believes that "social Darwinism" has any valid connection to evolution, then he's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is! That is the most ridiculous connection between two concepts I think I've ever seen in print.

Moreover, evolution may still be categorized as a theory, but there is so much empirical evidence supporting it that it is reasonable to call it fact. Anyone who looks at the scientific evidence has to concede that evolution occurs. Ben Stein is a professional provacateur- he makes his money thumbing his nose at certain portions of the intellectual establishment he does not like. I don't think his work is worth my money, as this article demonstrates, but I realize that's just my opinion.

I just don't get how a book written several thousand years ago, by mud-hut dwellers barely out of the stone age and edited by thousands of hands between then and now causes such a stir when someone dares say it isn't factually accurate. There are hundreds if not thousands of creation myths floating around the ether, yet the extreme "vocalness" of the Catholic/Christian community is influencing state policy, something that is suppose to be totally separate from religion.

I was raised Catholic, I believe in God and Christ. However, I don't believe the bible is the end-all, beat-all authority on science simply due to the FACTS I presented above. The bible has changed in the last 2000+ years, there have been additions and omissions, tweaks to fit ideology, society, monarchy and economy, to think otherwise is foolish at best and dangerous at worst.

Funny case in point "Thou shall not Kill" started as "Thou shall not Murder" very different meanings from a simple tweak.

Quiet Ed - I'm at school today - killing time in the library between Native American Culture and Paganism and Witchcraft.

I actually think this debate SHOULD be in science classrooms. It is obvious from many of these posts that most people have no idea what evolution is, what science is, or what the scientific evidence for evolution is. It would indeed be very helpful to show students WHY scientists have concluded that evolution is the correct theory, and WHY creationism does not meet that standard. And teach it in a way that the students can follow it through and figure it out for themselves. Science classes should never be lectures about facts. It should always involve students in learning how the scientific process works; in essence, learning how to learn.

...and people!!! The Bible has described two different kinds of dinosaurs that have only relatively recently been discovered. The Bible has been describing these two dinosaurs that were created the same time as man written 5000 years ago!!! Evolution is a total disgrace!

Daleri: So now you've changed your story from "the bible wrote about the Brontosaurus" to "the bible wrote about whatever was discovered last week."

Jeff
Evolution is a fact of life, each new virus proves it. Darwin gave all the proof needed in "Origin" without even an inkling of what a virus was. However, the "Theory of Evolution" is about the how and why. That is why it is Darwin's Theory and not "Darwin's Law". The arguments have always been more semantics than anything else. Even modern scientists do this to some extent. For example P.E. is really nothing more than an answer to a question that Darwin brought up in "Origin". The ironic part is that Darwin is the original I.D. believer.

Lawrence,

Yeah well I'm married too =) My husband and I manage to debate on a lot of this, even though we usually agree! I guess I always end up playing devil's advocate. It's no fun talking about something if we're just agreeing with each other all the time (and that doesn't require thinking, either).

Actually, many cultures have legends of a catastrophic flood... which, while not scientific proof of one, is certainly compelling!

Flood theory is much more complex than anything I could fit in a small post, but one key part of it holds that the earth was flatter before the flood; that the massive upheavel surrounding the flood--earthquakes and volcanoes--would have resulted in the mountains and ocean trenches we see on the earth today. (Again, catastrophic events shaping the earth's geology.) Also, this volcanic upheaval would have deposited a huge amount of molten material under the existing ocean; the lava being less dense than the existing cool ocean floor, it would have raised the sea level.

So a global flood could conceivably have covered the entire earth at that time, and much of the "water receding" would be attributed to rapid formation of mountains and valleys, as well as the lava cooling and bringing sea levels back down.

Here is some of the evidence which suggests a worldwide flood:

- The marine fossils I mentioned in the Grand Canyon are also found in many other locations in the world, including the Himalayas.

- "Fossil forests"--consisting of tree trunks buried upright--"grow" through millions of years worth of rock strata. Why wouldn't the trees have eroded long before they could be buried? The creationist view is that these trees were buried under layers of sediment in a catastrophic event (another phenomena that was seen at Mount St. Helens).

- There are plenty of examples of fossils which had to have been created instantly: there are several of fish buried while eating other fish; one of an ichthyosaur in the midst of a live birth; a find several years ago of hundreds of jellyfish buried in sand so quickly that they didn't have time to rot in the sun.

These are just a few examples...

Evolutionists might reject these as evidences of a global flood, but again, they simply have an alternate explanation for the facts. This doesn't prove their point or disprove the creationist explanation, so the creationist view deserves fair consideration.

I feel like I'm back in college...

Ned
Ben Stein is known for a sarcastic type humor. Does anyone know if this film is actually to be taken at face value?

If you do not believe in the whole Bible, than which parts are true and which are not? If you say that Noah's Ark and flood are false, then do you believe Jesus is the son of God? How does one pick and choose what is correct and what is not?

Quietman's point also illustrates most succinctly that there are believers in ID, that, when the facts stare them in the face, they deal with it, rather than retreat into a religious fervor and deny it all. Zealotry has probably killed off a lot of scientists and their beliefs.

Lori- Again, you cite some examples that could lead to either interpretation, but what about the other types of evidence that are NOT consistent with a young Earth, such as the radio-isotope evidence that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. You would have to suspend the laws of Physics to make that one consistent with creationist theory.

Science is about a body of evidence. The ambiguity of one piece of evidence can be clarified by all other available evidence. Evolutionary theory is supported by an enormous body of evidence in ALL fields of biology (anatomy, genetics, ecology, behavior, cell biology, etc.).

Lori
The alternative explanations make a whole lot more sense.

Re: "Actually, many cultures have legends of a catastrophic flood... which, while not scientific proof of one, is certainly compelling!"

Most early civilizations were coastal settlements, those that were not coastal were next to rivers. At the end of the last major glacation the coastal areas were flooded worldwide, hence the legends. Rivers we all know about.
***

Re: "volcanic upheaval would have deposited a huge amount of molten material under the existing ocean; the lava being less dense than the existing cool ocean floor, it would have raised the sea level."

It did and still does, however, there is somthing in science known as subduction zones. One such zone may well be the cause of El Nino and La Nina. This you should research, you will find it very interesting.
***

Re: "The marine fossils I mentioned in the Grand Canyon are also found in many