Re: Vatican against Creationism

[Guest guest]

I am not Catholic but my religious studies may be able to shed light

on what is described below.

Let's say we are still in the dark ages and all believe the sun

revolves around the earth. Along comes a scientist who says the earth

revolves around the sun.

The first thing the Vatican will do is put a stop to this theory

until it can be examined and proven, and if it happens that no one in

the Church can understand the science of it, the Vatican will persist

in denying the theory and trounce anyone who persist with advocating

it.

The Vatican's job is not to prove or disprove scientific theory

unless it threatens Christianity. They are not scientists, they are

guardians of all that they hold sacred.

In this day and age, things have changed slightly because those who

hold power in the church are more educated. They can now more easily

understand science, and though I do not speak for them, my feeling is

that they respect and approve of some kinds of scinece because many

types of sciences go a long way toward PROVING the parables and

anecdotes of the Bible to be correct.

Intelligent Design presents a new problem. To educational

administrators, it is a compromise between evolution and creationism,

and while this is a positive step in that it acknowledges the

possibility of order in nature, it still is NOT creationism and is

not a direct acknowledgement of God's role in this affair.

When you begin to blur the lines between the Bible and anything that

runs contrary to the Bible, this is when the Church steps in because

creationism and evolutions are two separate and distinct things.

There is, to the Church's way of thinking, no middle ground. In the

card game of life, there is creationism (God) and evolution (science)

and God trumps science every time.

Thus Pope II said: " that evolution was 'more than just a

hypothesis.' " I sense a bit of scorn and derision in that statement,

but given his good humor, it was probably more wit than sarcasm. I

believe that he knew he was talking to people who would remain

unconvinced no matter what he said, so he figured they weren't worth

his time or explanations.

Pope Benedict's statement APPEARS to backtrack on Pope II's

statement, but in reality, it says quite the opposite:

" Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution

debate by saying the universe was made by an 'intelligent project'

and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was

without direction or order. "

He seems to be advocating intelligent design here, but, in reality, I

think he was having a little bit of fun and being witty. For the

Christian, the creation of the earth was undertaken by God and was

indeed an intelligent project. But that is as close as creationism

gets to intelligent design. That's why he was " criticizing those who

in the name of science say its creation was without direction or

order. "

Tom

Administrator

It is interesting that after centuries the Vatican is again

supporting science. What Rev. Coyne is saying has been my opinion for

some time. If this does become the Vatican's official stance, they

will have switched places with many Protestant denominations: the

Catholics supporting science and reason and the Protestants Religious

Dogma over science.

Vatican Astronomer: Intelligent Design Not Science

Friday, November 18, 2005

VATICAN CITY †" The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday

that " intelligent design " isn't science and doesn't belong in science

classrooms, becoming the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official

to enter the evolution debate in the United States.

The Rev. Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican

Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of

evolution in school programs was " wrong " and was akin to mixing

apples with oranges.

" Intelligent design isn't science, even though it pretends to be, "

the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a

conference in Florence. " If you want to teach it in schools,

intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history

is taught, not science. "

His comments were in line with his previous statements

on " intelligent design, " whose supporters hold that the universe is

so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Proponents of intelligent design are seeking to get public schools in

the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum.

Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism †" a literal

reading of the Bible's story of creation †" camouflaged in

scientific language, and they say it does not belong in science

curriculum.

In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne

reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the

history of the universe.

" If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best

of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from

the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who

made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly. "

Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.

" God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that

reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to

greater and greater complexity, " he wrote. " He is not continually

intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves. "

The Vatican Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest

astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the

papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution

debate by saying the universe was made by an " intelligent project "

and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was

without direction or order.

Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in

July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.

In a New York Times column, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent

design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope II that

evolution was " more than just a hypothesis. " Schoenborn said the late

pope's statement was " rather vague and unimportant. "

[Guest guest]

I am not Catholic but my religious studies may be able to shed light

on what is described below.

Let's say we are still in the dark ages and all believe the sun

revolves around the earth. Along comes a scientist who says the earth

revolves around the sun.

The first thing the Vatican will do is put a stop to this theory

until it can be examined and proven, and if it happens that no one in

the Church can understand the science of it, the Vatican will persist

in denying the theory and trounce anyone who persist with advocating

it.

The Vatican's job is not to prove or disprove scientific theory

unless it threatens Christianity. They are not scientists, they are

guardians of all that they hold sacred.

In this day and age, things have changed slightly because those who

hold power in the church are more educated. They can now more easily

understand science, and though I do not speak for them, my feeling is

that they respect and approve of some kinds of scinece because many

types of sciences go a long way toward PROVING the parables and

anecdotes of the Bible to be correct.

Intelligent Design presents a new problem. To educational

administrators, it is a compromise between evolution and creationism,

and while this is a positive step in that it acknowledges the

possibility of order in nature, it still is NOT creationism and is

not a direct acknowledgement of God's role in this affair.

When you begin to blur the lines between the Bible and anything that

runs contrary to the Bible, this is when the Church steps in because

creationism and evolutions are two separate and distinct things.

There is, to the Church's way of thinking, no middle ground. In the

card game of life, there is creationism (God) and evolution (science)

and God trumps science every time.

Thus Pope II said: " that evolution was 'more than just a

hypothesis.' " I sense a bit of scorn and derision in that statement,

but given his good humor, it was probably more wit than sarcasm. I

believe that he knew he was talking to people who would remain

unconvinced no matter what he said, so he figured they weren't worth

his time or explanations.

Pope Benedict's statement APPEARS to backtrack on Pope II's

statement, but in reality, it says quite the opposite:

" Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution

debate by saying the universe was made by an 'intelligent project'

and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was

without direction or order. "

He seems to be advocating intelligent design here, but, in reality, I

think he was having a little bit of fun and being witty. For the

Christian, the creation of the earth was undertaken by God and was

indeed an intelligent project. But that is as close as creationism

gets to intelligent design. That's why he was " criticizing those who

in the name of science say its creation was without direction or

order. "

Tom

Administrator

It is interesting that after centuries the Vatican is again

supporting science. What Rev. Coyne is saying has been my opinion for

some time. If this does become the Vatican's official stance, they

will have switched places with many Protestant denominations: the

Catholics supporting science and reason and the Protestants Religious

Dogma over science.

Vatican Astronomer: Intelligent Design Not Science

Friday, November 18, 2005

VATICAN CITY †" The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday

that " intelligent design " isn't science and doesn't belong in science

classrooms, becoming the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official

to enter the evolution debate in the United States.

The Rev. Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican

Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of

evolution in school programs was " wrong " and was akin to mixing

apples with oranges.

" Intelligent design isn't science, even though it pretends to be, "

the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a

conference in Florence. " If you want to teach it in schools,

intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history

is taught, not science. "

His comments were in line with his previous statements

on " intelligent design, " whose supporters hold that the universe is

so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Proponents of intelligent design are seeking to get public schools in

the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum.

Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism †" a literal

reading of the Bible's story of creation †" camouflaged in

scientific language, and they say it does not belong in science

curriculum.

In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne

reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the

history of the universe.

" If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best

of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from

the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who

made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly. "

Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.

" God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that

reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to

greater and greater complexity, " he wrote. " He is not continually

intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves. "

The Vatican Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest

astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the

papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution

debate by saying the universe was made by an " intelligent project "

and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was

without direction or order.

Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in

July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.

In a New York Times column, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent

design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope II that

evolution was " more than just a hypothesis. " Schoenborn said the late

pope's statement was " rather vague and unimportant. "

[Guest guest]

Why Fight Over Intelligent Design?

Friday, November 18, 2005

By J. Coulson

Supporters of the theory of human origins known as "intelligent design" want it taught alongside the theory of evolution. Opponents will do anything to keep it out of science classrooms. The disagreement is clear.

But why does everyone assume that we must settle it through an ideological death-match in the town square?

Intelligent design contends that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved naturally, and so must be the product of an unspecified intelligent designer. Most adherents of this idea would undoubtedly be happy just to have it taught to their own children, and most of my fellow evolutionists presumably believe they should have that right. So why are we fighting?

We’re fighting because the institution of public schooling forces us to, by permitting only one government-sanctioned explanation of human origins. The only way for one side to have its views reflected in the official curriculum is at the expense of the other side.

This manufactured conflict serves no public good. After all, does it really matter if some Americans believe intelligent design is a valid scientific theory while others see it as a Lamb of God in sheep’s clothing? Surely not. While there are certainly issues on which consensus is key — respect for the rule of law and the rights of fellow citizens, tolerance of differing viewpoints, etc. — the origin of species is not one of them.

The sad truth is that state-run schooling has created a multitude of similarly pointless battles. Nothing is gained, for instance, by compelling conformity on school prayer, random drug testing, the set of religious holidays that are worth observing, or the most appropriate forms of sex education.

Not only are these conflicts unnecessary, they are socially corrosive. Every time we fight over the official government curriculum, it breeds more resentment and animosity within our communities. These public-schooling-induced battles have done much to inflame tensions between Red and Blue America.

But while Americans bicker incessantly over pedagogical teachings, we seldom fight over theological ones. The difference, of course, is that the Bill of Rights precludes the establishment of an official religion. Our founding fathers were prescient in calling for the separation of church and state, but failed to foresee the dire social consequences of entangling education and state. Those consequences are now all too apparent.

Fortunately, there is a way to end the cycle of educational violence: parental choice. Why not reorganize our schools so that parents can easily get the sort of education they value for their own children without having to force it on their neighbors?

Doing so would not be difficult. A combination of tax relief for middle income families and financial assistance for low-income families would give everyone access to the independent education marketplace. A few strokes of the legislative pen could thus bring peace along the entire “education front†of America’s culture war.

But let's be honest. At least a few Americans see our recurrent battles over the government curriculum as a price worth paying. Even in the "land of the free," there is a temptation to seize the apparatus of state schooling and use it to proselytize our neighbors with our own ideas or beliefs.

In addition to being socially divisive and utterly incompatible with American ideals, such propagandizing is also ineffectual. After generations in which evolution has been public schooling's sole explanation of human origins, only a third of Americans consider it a theory well-supported by scientific evidence. By contrast, 51 percent of Americans believe “God created human beings in their present form.â€

These findings should give pause not only to evolutionists but to supporters of intelligent design as well. After all, if public schooling has made such a hash of teaching evolution, why expect it to do any better with I.D.?

Admittedly, the promotion of social harmony is an unusual justification for replacing public schools with parent-driven education markets. Most arguments for parental choice rest on the private sector’s superior academic performance or cost-effectiveness. But when you stop and think about it, doesn’t the combination of these advantages suggest that free markets would be a far more intelligent design for American education?

J. Coulson is director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute.

[Guest guest]

> Intelligent Design presents a new problem. To educational

> administrators, it is a compromise between evolution and creationism

This raises an issue about what constitutes " compromise " .

I think there are two kinds of compromise:

1. Agreeing to share a resource, or modify activities, so that two or

more parties are not unduly threatened or inconvenienced in daily

life. I think one of the best examples of this is the way Israel and

its neighbors, never the best of friends, nonetheless have jointly

worked out a longstanding agreement for sharing the water of the

Jordan River.

2. For the sake of appeasing a bully, agreeing that 2 + 2 is not equal

to 4, but halfway between 4 and some other number preferred by the bully.

I think Intelligent Design is a clear example of the latter. " Aw,

c'mon you stuffy ol' science guys. Will it really hurt you to say

that 2+2 might equal 3.5 instead of 4, just to give us a break? "

Well, yes it will. Introducing fantasy numbers into mathematics, or

engineering, or chemistry, or physics, will give you the wrong answer,

and may result in buildings falling, planes crashing, or medicines

killing rather than healing.

In the same way, introducing unproven, unsupported-by-facts hypotheses

into a discipline that is supposed to be focused entirely on

empirical evidence, predictability and reproducibility, gets in the

way of actually figuring out the truth of things.

As the Russians learned under Lysenko, making certain areas of

scientific inquiry off-limits for political reasons is a good way to

cripple science.

Certain poobahs who hold power based on the credibility of their

followers would probably like to weaken disciplines that focus on

getting to the truth of things. The question is whether they should

be allowed to intimidate public institutions into doing their bidding

to that end.

[Guest guest]

> Intelligent Design presents a new problem. To educational

> administrators, it is a compromise between evolution and creationism

This raises an issue about what constitutes " compromise " .

I think there are two kinds of compromise:

1. Agreeing to share a resource, or modify activities, so that two or

more parties are not unduly threatened or inconvenienced in daily

life. I think one of the best examples of this is the way Israel and

its neighbors, never the best of friends, nonetheless have jointly

worked out a longstanding agreement for sharing the water of the

Jordan River.

2. For the sake of appeasing a bully, agreeing that 2 + 2 is not equal

to 4, but halfway between 4 and some other number preferred by the bully.

I think Intelligent Design is a clear example of the latter. " Aw,

c'mon you stuffy ol' science guys. Will it really hurt you to say

that 2+2 might equal 3.5 instead of 4, just to give us a break? "

Well, yes it will. Introducing fantasy numbers into mathematics, or

engineering, or chemistry, or physics, will give you the wrong answer,

and may result in buildings falling, planes crashing, or medicines

killing rather than healing.

In the same way, introducing unproven, unsupported-by-facts hypotheses

into a discipline that is supposed to be focused entirely on

empirical evidence, predictability and reproducibility, gets in the

way of actually figuring out the truth of things.

As the Russians learned under Lysenko, making certain areas of

scientific inquiry off-limits for political reasons is a good way to

cripple science.

Certain poobahs who hold power based on the credibility of their

followers would probably like to weaken disciplines that focus on

getting to the truth of things. The question is whether they should

be allowed to intimidate public institutions into doing their bidding

to that end.

[Guest guest]

I have personally never seen it as an either-or-situation. Why create an

artificial dichotomy, if not as another way of divide- & -rule? As far as I

know, science has yet to prove that God does NOT exist. Nor does the

possible existence of God nullify what science has unveiled about our

Universe so far. So what's the problem?

Article:

> In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne

> reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the history

> of the universe.

" If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of

modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion

of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe

as a watch that ticks along regularly. "

Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.

" God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that

freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater

complexity, " he wrote. " He is not continually intervening, but rather

allows, participates, loves. "

I find this entirely plausible and the best explanation I've seen so far.

Inger

[Guest guest]

> Article:

> > In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne

> > reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the

history

> > of the universe.

> " If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of

> modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from

the notion

> of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the

universe

> as a watch that ticks along regularly. "

> Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.

> " God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that

reflects that

> freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and

greater

> complexity, " he wrote. " He is not continually intervening, but rather

> allows, participates, loves. "

>

> I find this entirely plausible and the best explanation I've seen so

far.

>

> Inger

>

It's pretty good.

But science still hasn't a clue where the physical constants came

from, it accepts them just arbitrarily being what they are, yet tiny

differences in them would mean a universe unable to develop complex

life. There is evidence of design there. Design not of the watch,

okay, but of the rules that make the watch possible.

I believe that infinite-dimensional space, all places, exists

uncreated, but within it a universe of any finite number of dimensions

requires creating and only exists by the joined-up gravity of the

objects in it. Hence,the creation could be done my microscopic

tweaking of space, known as " vacuum fluctuations " , at an infinite

series of points in the planes of the universe's dimensions - and by

the exact values and angles of the tweaks relative to each other, the

physical constants could be created set to predecided values.

From the World Treasury of Physics Astronomy and Mathematics,on the

creation of higher atoms by fusion inside stars:

*****************************

Carbon is the fourth most common atom in our galaxy, after hydrogen,

helium, and oxygen, but it isn'tvery abundant. A carbon nucleus can be

made by merging 3 helium nuclei, but a triple collision is rare. It

would be easier if 2 helium nuclei would stick together to form

beryllium, but beryllium is not very stable. Nevertheless, sometimes

before the 2 helium can come unstuck, a third helium stikes home and a

carbon nucleus results. Here the internal details of the carbon

nucleus become interesting: it turns out that there is precisely the

right resonance within the carbon to help this process along. Without

it, there would be relatively few carbon atoms.

Similarly, the internal details of oxygen nuclei play a critical role.

Oxygen can be formed by combining helium and carbon, but the

corresponding resonance level in the oxygen nucleus is 1/2 % too low

for the combination to stay together easily. Had the resonance level

in the carbon been 4% lower, there would be essentially no carbon. Had

that level in the oxygen been only 1/2 % higher, virtually all of the

carbone would have been converted to oxygen. Without that carbon

abundance, neither you nor I would be here now.

I am told that Fred Hoyle, who together with Fowler first

noticed the remarkable arrangement of carbon and oxygen nuclear

resonances, has said that nothing has shaken his atheism as much as

this discovery. In the Nov 1981 issue of Engineering and Science, the

Caltech alumni magazine, Hoyle writes:

" Would you not say to yourself, " Some supercalculating intellect must

have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance

of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be

utterly miniscule? " Of course you would.

[Guest guest]

I don't get the hoopla about this whole evolution vs. intelligent

design argument. It's come up every several years ever since the late

1800's. The last time I remember it was in the early '80's with

creationism vs. evolution. That was an easy one because the argument

against creationism was that the earth couldn't have been created in

6-24 hour periods. Well, the bible never says the days were 24 hour

periods, they could have been any length of time, probably thousands

of years each if the 7th day is any clue--God is still 'resting' from

creation and it's been thousands of years, so I guess they're trying

again with 'intelligent design' instead. If evolution is a theory

that hasn't been proven scientifically, and intelligent design is a

theory that can't be proven scientifically why is it so important?

What rests on it? What does each side want? Why does either side care

what anyone believes in? If the religious side just wants to be able

to tell their side, why won't the scientific side let them? Is it

just a matter of wanting to keep religion out of science class? I can

understand that, but why won't they call evolution a theory instead

of presenting it like a fact as they do?

>

> I have personally never seen it as an either-or-situation. Why

create an

> artificial dichotomy, if not as another way of divide- & -rule? As

far as I

> know, science has yet to prove that God does NOT exist. Nor does

the

> possible existence of God nullify what science has unveiled about

our

> Universe so far. So what's the problem?

>

> Article:

> > In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet,

Coyne

> > reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the

history

> > of the universe.

> " If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best

of

> modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from

the notion

> of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the

universe

> as a watch that ticks along regularly. "

> Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.

> " God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that

reflects that

> freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and

greater

> complexity, " he wrote. " He is not continually intervening, but

rather

> allows, participates, loves. "

>

> I find this entirely plausible and the best explanation I've seen

so far.

>

> Inger

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/21/2005 11:50:33 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, mikecarrie01@... writes:

"Uh... because it IS a fact?"But it's not a fact, it's just presented that way. There's no proof, therefore, it's a theory."I don't see how anyone with some> intelligence could doubt that."That's an opinion. Mine is the opposite.

Theory is a misunderstood word. It can mean an idea that serves as the basis for experimentation. So: I theorize that if I go out into the rain I will get wet, which leads to designing the test (going outside for a time and coming back in), performing the test, then examining the results to see if they confirm the theory. In this case it probably would. This is a small "t" theory.

The big "T" theories are different. Those are theories in the sense that they are proven and are a major force. So, the Theory of Gravity is a Big "T" Theory. We know gravity works since we see it every second of our waking lives and science has for the most part figured it out. Yet it is still called a Theory.

In the same way, Darwinism is a Big "T" theory. We know it works because we can see it happening. This can be Darwin's observations, bacteria developing antibiotic immunity to human selective breeding of animal species. Darwin wasn't 100% correct in parts of his theory, such as evolution being gradual over time and being due to genetic mutations, but for the most part he was correct. The Theory has been refined over time as most theories are, but that does not invalidate Darwin any more than new discoveries about gravity discredit Newton.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/21/2005 1:37:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

>: "....... Card's Ender"

?????

The Ender series. Ender is the nickname of a boy who enters an elite military academy where he is so proficient at winning he gets that nickname. I won't say more incase anyone wants to read the books.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/21/2005 1:58:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, mikecarrie01@... writes:

Oh, dear, that's a shame. I've got poor vision but glasses work just fine, I don't know what I'd do if I couldn't read. Can you listen to Books on Tape?

There are machines out there that can magnify print and display it either on the TV or computer screen or its own monitor.

[Guest guest]

" Uh... because it IS a fact? "

But it's not a fact, it's just presented that way. There's no proof,

therefore, it's a theory.

" I don't see how anyone with some

> intelligence could doubt that. "

That's an opinion. Mine is the opposite.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/21/2005 4:34:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, mikecarrie01@... writes:

Ah, but the difference between gravity and darwinism is that gravity exists now and we don't question it's beginning. We have not seen the beginning of life on planet earth nor the theorized jumps and/or gradual changes, nor do we have a fossil record to support Darwin's intellectual exercise.

Actually we do have an extensive fossil record going back about 1 billion years. Earth's geologic activity has made this a little hard to follow by scattering bones or having them washed away or buried. But we have a pretty good idea of how things progressed and over what time periods.

For example: we know that in a very early period there were many types of body plans in existence and all manner of creatures in the oceans. But then there was an extinction event that killed about 90% of all species. Those that survived had the basic body designs that have survived to this day. We also know that dinosaurs lived for millions of years and that they changed and evolved over time and that they died out around 65 million years ago. At the same time, we know that mammals existed back then as well.

However, the fossil record rarely shows a "missing link" transition animal. This is because fossils are comparatively rare. What we can do is compare a younger set of fossils with older fossils of a similar type and deduce how they have changed.

Darwin did not used fossils anyway. He observed the same type of bird on different islands where each had different adaptations to the local conditions. A sparrow on one island might be adapted to eating seeds while on the next island the sparrow as adapted to taking nectar from flowers.

We can also see forced evolution in some animals. Take the Cheetah. The Cheetah is designed for speed and it works well in that niche. However, it is overspecialized and genetics are starting to tell. Its design has reached it limit and is beginning to break down. As a result, Cheetahs are becoming rare, victims of their own success.

[Guest guest]

>I don't get the hoopla about this whole evolution vs. intelligent

>design argument. It's come up every several years ever since the late

>1800's. The last time I remember it was in the early '80's with

>creationism vs. evolution. That was an easy one because the argument

>against creationism was that the earth couldn't have been created in

>6-24 hour periods. Well, the bible never says the days were 24 hour

>periods, they could have been any length of time, probably thousands

>of years each if the 7th day is any clue--God is still 'resting' from

>creation and it's been thousands of years, so I guess they're trying

>again with 'intelligent design' instead. If evolution is a theory

>that hasn't been proven scientifically, and intelligent design is a

>theory that can't be proven scientifically why is it so important?

>What rests on it? What does each side want? Why does either side care

>what anyone believes in? If the religious side just wants to be able

>to tell their side, why won't the scientific side let them? Is it

>just a matter of wanting to keep religion out of science class? I can

>understand that, but why won't they call evolution a theory instead

>of presenting it like a fact as they do?

Uh... because it IS a fact? I don't see how anyone with some

intelligence could doubt that. It's confusing me.

Lwaxy

[Guest guest]

At 12:14 PM 11/21/2005, you wrote:

>Uh... because it IS a fact? I don't see how anyone with some

>intelligence could doubt that. It's confusing me.

>

>Lwaxy

Certainty is very dangerous....

I believe in Evolution, The Big Bang, General Relativity, and Quantum

Mechanics. But they are not now nor ever will be FACT, because I

understand that they are approximations of reality.

We don't understand enough about the universe yet to fully understand

the problems much less the answers... Right now they are the best

generally accepted estimates we have available....

To state that they ARE FACT is to show the same faulty logic that you

imply is shown by some of the religious communities...

Ender...

[Guest guest]

Everytime I see your name, for a second I think you are Card's

Ender and that I'm reading what his Ender is saying...

>

> >Uh... because it IS a fact? I don't see how anyone with some

> >intelligence could doubt that. It's confusing me.

> >

> >Lwaxy

>

> Certainty is very dangerous....

>

> I believe in Evolution, The Big Bang, General Relativity, and

Quantum

> Mechanics. But they are not now nor ever will be FACT, because I

> understand that they are approximations of reality.

>

> We don't understand enough about the universe yet to fully

understand

> the problems much less the answers... Right now they are the best

> generally accepted estimates we have available....

>

> To state that they ARE FACT is to show the same faulty logic that

you

> imply is shown by some of the religious communities...

>

> Ender...

>

[Guest guest]

>: "....... Card's Ender"?????  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

Ender Wiggin is the name of a character in a series written by Orson

Card starting with the book, Ender's Game.

>

> >: " ....... Card's Ender "

>

> ?????

>

> Rainbow

>

[Guest guest]

>: "Ender Wiggin is the name of a character in a series written by Orson  Card starting with the book, Ender's Game."Thank you, never heard of book or author. I'm old, with genetically compromised vision, consequently am able to read only with great difficulty.  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

Oh, dear, that's a shame. I've got poor vision but glasses work just

fine, I don't know what I'd do if I couldn't read. Can you listen to

Books on Tape?

>

> >: " Ender Wiggin is the name of a character in a series

> written by Orson Card starting with the book, Ender's Game. "

>

> Thank you, never heard of book or author. I'm old, with genetically

> compromised vision, consequently am able to read only with great

> difficulty.

>

> Rainbow

>

[Guest guest]

Is that good or bad thing... :-\ Yes Card's Ender is where it came

from... I like the older Ender in " Speaker for the Dead, " " Xenocide "

and " Children of the Mind " better. Bean is good to I sort of see

myself as mix of Ender and Bean that got treated like ...

I hope my comments live up to what the real Ender might say...

Ender

At 12:56 PM 11/21/2005, you wrote:

>Everytime I see your name, for a second I think you are Card's

>Ender and that I'm reading what his Ender is saying...

[Guest guest]

Is that good or bad thing... :-\ Yes Card's Ender is where it came

from... I like the older Ender in " Speaker for the Dead, " " Xenocide "

and " Children of the Mind " better. Bean is good to I sort of see

myself as mix of Ender and Bean that got treated like ...

I hope my comments live up to what the real Ender might say...

Ender

At 12:56 PM 11/21/2005, you wrote:

>Everytime I see your name, for a second I think you are Card's

>Ender and that I'm reading what his Ender is saying...

[Guest guest]

I like the second series better. One of them, the 2nd or 3rd book, I

can't remember, was brilliant.

Card's Ender was Aspie-like, don't you think? I wonder if Card

is, as well. I met him, he seems like it and we kind of had that click

that Aspies sometimes have with each other.

> >Everytime I see your name, for a second I think you are Card's

> >Ender and that I'm reading what his Ender is saying...

>

[Guest guest]

You can get records of all the Ender books at audible.com (eight or

nine, I'm not sure if " First Meetings " counts) all except " Ender's

Shadow " are available unabridged...

At 01:50 PM 11/21/2005, you wrote:

> >: " Ender Wiggin is the name of a character in a series

> written by Orson Card starting with the book, Ender's Game. "

>

>Thank you, never heard of book or author. I'm old, with genetically

>compromised vision, consequently am able to read only with great difficulty.

[Guest guest]

Second series been the " Shadow... " books, right? Both Ender and Bean

do have Aspie traits, that is part of what draw me to the

characters... I think a lot of Cards characters are Aspieish.

Card has a web site http://www.hatrack.com/

Ender

At 02:00 PM 11/21/2005, you wrote:

>I like the second series better. One of them, the 2nd or 3rd book, I

>can't remember, was brilliant.

>

>Card's Ender was Aspie-like, don't you think? I wonder if Card

>is, as well. I met him, he seems like it and we kind of had that click

>that Aspies sometimes have with each other.

>

>

> > >Everytime I see your name, for a second I think you are Card's

> > >Ender and that I'm reading what his Ender is saying...