I don’t know who Casey is, but he made one great point. Textbooks are becoming biased by the personal beliefs and biases of the writers from history to science. Science books present arguments for various aspects of evolution but they never present the short comings and problems in evolution. Anyone who would tell there are not problems is a blatant liar. For some strange reason they are afraid to show the students the many shortcomings within the paradigm of evolution.
Don’t you love how these guys argues aback and forth “believe me” no believe me”. The subject is too political and too religious to trust any of them.
In general, people who see big problems in evolution simply don’t understand it.
But, even if one grants that there are big problems (which there aren’t), that doesn’t support the assertion that things were created by some god.
on 13 Jun 2009 at 11:49 pm 3.A said …
People who don’t believe there are problems with evolution don’t understand it. MAny unanswered question which is why after 150 years it continues to change. The biggest obstacle has been the discovery of incredible complexity of life. The resulting advances continue to point to theism.
Of course there are problems. Of course it’s going to change. That’s how science works.
The complexity of life itself is not a problem. What is a problem is that creationists have a set conclusion they need to work towards. And they’ll grasp at anything to get there.
And again, deficiencies in scientific theories don’t point to theism. Theism isn’t a default answer to anything not completely explained. Well, it isn’t logically anyway. If you want to posit an extra-logical entity to simply explain away the stuff you don’t understand, then I guess you can go ahead and do that. Just don’t fool yourself that it logically follows.
In essence, creationists say things are too complex and improbable to have arisen on their own. So they posit an even more complex and improbable being to “create” everything. And this makes them feel better.
on 14 Jun 2009 at 8:40 am 5."I AM" said …
“And again, deficiencies in scientific theories don’t point to theism.”
And one more time brother, there are alot of theories that point to theism, read closely the bible.
Abiogenesis, evolution, dinosaurs, and plenty more. Science just has a more complete explanation filled with details. The hard part is fitting the puzzle for theists and atheists.
on 14 Jun 2009 at 9:50 am 6.Xenon said …
Deficiencies in science don’t necessarily point to truth either. Science is a wonderful tool, but it should be just one of many. It is not a crystal ball to the past.
on 15 Jun 2009 at 1:16 am 7."I AM" said …
on 15 Jun 2009 at 1:51 am 8.Red said …
You probably agree because you’re the same person. (Lou?)
It’s almost funny but entirely painful how you ignore everybody else. Go pick up a damn 9th grade biology book.
on 15 Jun 2009 at 1:54 am 9."I AM" said …
I am not Lou.. and plus I have passed the ninth grade a while ago.
on 17 Jun 2009 at 11:37 am 10.Lou said …
Amazing is it not I AM how some guys just want to argue even with an accepted premise of science.