A War on Science

A War on Science

2006, Science  -   467 Comments
Ratings: 7.87/10 from 67 users.

A War on ScienceWhen Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution nearly 150 years ago, he shattered the dominant belief of his day – that humans were the product of divine creation. Through his observations of nature, Darwin proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection. This caused uproar. After all, if the story of creation could be doubted, so too could the existence of the creator. Ever since its proposal, this cornerstone of biology has sustained wave after wave of attack. Now some scientists fear it is facing the most formidable challenge yet: a controversial new theory called intelligent design.

In the late 1980s Phillip Johnson, a renowned lawyer and born-again Christian, began to develop a strategy to challenge Darwin. To Johnson, the evidence for natural selection was poor. He also believed that by explaining the world only through material processes was inherently atheistic. If there was a god, science would never be able to discover it.

Johnson recruited other Darwin doubters, including biochemist Professor Michael Behe, mathematician Dr William Dembski, and philosopher of science Dr Stephen Meyer. These scientists developed the theory of intelligent design (ID) which claims that certain features of the natural world are best explained as the result of an intelligent being. To him, the presence of miniature machines and digital information found in living cells are evidence of a supernatural creator. Throughout the 90s, the ID movement took to disseminating articles, books and DVDs and organising conferences all over the world.

To its supporters, intelligent design heralds a revolution in science and the movement is fast gaining political clout. Not only does it have the support of the President of the United States, it is on the verge of being introduced to science classes across the nation. However, its many critics, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, fear that it cloaks a religious motive – to replace science with god.

More great documentaries

Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Azlan aziz
4 years ago

God create everything, from thing put knowledge (science part of god knowledge gifted by chosen temporary be refund when the time age before soul be transfer from physical released like when we came from uterus bring nothing. Its same to properties, fame, title all those are temp. Waste time in this worlds with that material that god create to test us but not many take advantage for next journey they end wasted.

5 years ago

Some comments like to even the field and imply that atheists/evolutionists (aka science are simply the opposite side of the religious coin. Not so. The difference is stark. Science-reliers depend on the evidence presented by people (scientists) who observe the way things work and experiment to reveal its possibility/probability/provability. At every step they indicate which of those conclusions they reached and, everything is subject to reassessment and changing or abandoning as new evidence comes to light. That can, by no stretch of the imagination, be compared to religious faith which cannot be doubted by the adherents to the Bible or Koran. (Kelly K., you might bolster your credibility if you knew the spelling of terms you refer to so prominently. Occams Razor.)

5 years ago

John Scopes was put on trial for teaching evolution in which year?

Sophisticated European
5 years ago

And this is why Europe sees most of the americans as uneducated religious rednecks potentially as dangerous and archaic as the most unadvanced integrist societies

6 years ago

The theory of Intelligent Design is not creationism and it doesn't have a religious motive. Just because a scientist is religious doesn't mean that their theory should be denounced. If that were the case the theory of evolution would never have been accepted. If you actually look at the theories surrounding the origin of life then you would realize what they are all missing, an actual explanation. The idea that cells came to be through chance has nearly no chance of being right since the odds of all the proteins necessary for a simple cell to come into existence by chance are 1 in 10^41,000. Those are terrific odds and unless they had all the time in the world to do, not possible. Plus when scientists talk about the primotrial soup and all of that, there is no evidence of its existence, that and a lot of theories say that the earth had a harsh atmosphere that would have allowed things to come together to form life, but recent evidence shows that this also is not true. No theory other than this one actually addresses all the facts and addresses the problems with the information in DNA and the fact that the only things codes that hold information are DNA, RNA, proteins, and things that are manmade like computers. So if the world could get over the religion vs. science they could see that this theory is science and that unless data appears to disprove it, it is valid.

Philip H
6 years ago

We know with reasonable certainty that civilisation exploded around 4,500 years ago in Mesopotamia. Considering how advanced that civilisation was, and our nature to gather together and make tools, I find the idea that we could have been scratching our arses for 200,000 years of existence before that, with little or nothing to show for it, an insult to my intellect.

If the bible is correct, then a rebellious angel rules the world who can quote the bible quite well, so how do you know you aren't under his thumb? The scribes of Jesus day knew the bible better than you (the vast majority anyway) do and they were convinced of their salvation.

9 years ago

As all scientists know, just because a theory can not be proven, does not mean the theory is invalid. Only until a theory is proven invalid can science prove the theory to be untrue. I would like to think there are individuals who are guided by the most noble part of their consciousness.
That is what I call spirit, the highest within each individual, the kindest and most intelligent of reasoning. Religion is the corruption of individual spirit, the perversion of collective spirit. Unfortunately, the genetic psychopaths amongst us, those who desire control over the unfettered, generous, creative spirit of the individual, tend to be drawn into organized religion, just as they are drawn into corporations, politics, and the military-industrial complex. Before the Christian church was highjacked by the declining Roman Empire, the loosely organized Gnostic communities provided service to the common people. They helped each other and most importantly, the less fortunate living within their midst. I still believe there are good, sincere, religious people, although far and few between. Thanks for your response.

9 years ago

Science has become a switch-addiction for religion. Science is most certainly not the panacea that many who have abandoned spiritual belief have imagined it would be. Look around us, science has helped humans on many levels but science has also brought nature to the brink of destruction. Blind science with no reverence for vision is like religion with no respect for science. They are 2 sides of the same coin.

9 years ago

“Religion an attack on science”? Only from the fundamentalists that believe blindly that something as complicated as the stellar nucleosynthesis process (Proton-proton and the CNO cycle) can be answered with “…and God created in 6 days”. Yet the Bible is not saying that it was simply done it is just giving a layman’s simple reply to cause and effect of our deliberate informationally bounded existence. Should I state in conclusion that “Henry Ford created the Model T Ford and could pop them out at a rate of one every 6 seconds or so?” Well, I could. It would not be totally incorrect…. And children do learn this and it would not be argued much in everyday chat. However, in digging into it there is the assemble line process and a big building and much machinery and many workers. AND, each model however, did not evolve on its own cognition! The model A Ford has similar parts and operations but the changes were designed deliberately…all the way up to seatbelts! There are intelligent people/minds behind EACH different version…the
different models do not evolve on their own decision based on the few inferior models that could not get along on the road with their ‘peers’ and so ‘limped’ back to the factory to ‘magically’ come up with a better mutation of design! Information always points back to Intelligence! And we never make information we only discover it…sometimes nicely and well hidden in the ever increasing entropy of this universe. We are so surrounded by information that we do not even see it anymore—we are like fish in water, we do not know we are wet. Religion is NOT against science fundamentalists are against science!! The Bible even states that we are to: always “seek knowledge in our youth”; to “come let us reason”; to “seek and the door will be opened”; to “test everything and hold on to that which is good” (what works and is true); that we are “to NOT conform to
the pattern of this world but be transformed by a RENEWING of your mind.” (You are to renew YOUR mind not be influenced incorrectly by cults and Ouija boards or astrology…any non-reasonable input).
Andrew Dickson White and John Draper began the separation of religion from science back in the mid 1800 (look them up on Google) even though it was mostly Christian and Islamic folks who initiated learning from out of the times of the dark ages (you want fundamentalism then go look to the medieval inquisition)
with the beginning of universities. And I quote from Google “History_of_Christianity_of_the_Middle_Ages”:

Modern western universities have their origins directly in the Medieval Church. They began as cathedral schools, and all
students were considered clerics. This was a benefit as it placed the students under ecclesiastical jurisdiction and thus imparted certain legal immunities and protections. The cathedral schools eventually became partially detached from the cathedrals and formed their own institutions, the earliest being the University of Paris (c. 1150), the University of Bologna (1088), and the University of Oxford
(1096). Universities as institutions that issue academic degrees were inspired by Islamic madrasahs founded in the ninth century.[10] For instance, the University of Al Karaouine in Fez, Morocco is thus recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records as the oldest degree-granting university in the world with its founding in 859 by the princess Fatima al-Fihri.

As with all things “human” we tend to go to extremes. And we should NOT do that. There is a medium ground. We need to find that narrow line/zone and be careful to not lean too far one way or the other.

9 years ago

Even if irreducible complexity was discovered, that doesn't prove a creator, it just proves that evolution is random. In the same way that creatures may evolve worthless parts, and those parts may continue to evolve until they are useful somehow, and therefore help the creature to, for example survive better out of the water. So naturally(literally) that species migrates to a new environment(because it can) where it may thrive.


10 years ago

Intelligent design is absurd. It implies that living creatures have been created by someone long ago and that they have never changed that design of theirs. Animals nowadays are constantly adapting and evolving. A biological 'machine' could never do that. Maybe these anti-evolution thinkers should first read some cytology. There's your 'intelligent' design. Of course the mechanism is perfect, they have to be after having changed and adapted for millions of years. And any religious fanatic who claims the world is 6.000 years old and that it was made in seven days, you are just hypocrite. How can you deny fossils? Have scientists placed them all around the world to combat creationism? It's so silly, so pitiful, that you can't deal with a world without God; we can all do perfectly fine without it. It is what animals have done for millions of years.

10 years ago

I love how in every documentary, any quote displayed of George Bush is followed by stereotypical banjo music. This is highly appropriate.

10 years ago

27:30 -- No, you're not hopelessly misguided. You're hopelessly misguiding.

10 years ago

A war? It is like a kid arguing with adults. How the hell can they make a war out of that? We should deal with them, like we should deal with trolls; Ignore them.

11 years ago

great job Vlatko, really confrontational doc, you could start a war with this

eanough of evolutionISM and creationISM, there is no point in debating except the pretext of violence

11 years ago

Yah and what about this global warming farce!

i yi yi. You can't really say the naysayers against evolution are against science itself only evolution ............

However those in the global warming / green complex are making war upon the scientific method of questioning everything. And that is MUCH worse.

11 years ago

@Over the Edge
'holy text explosion batman!' I'm stealing that. That's pure genius.

Excellent documentary cheers TDF and all involved!

I'd just like to add if there was an intelligent creator he/she must have been a civil servant.

Who else would put the waste outlet in the middle of the pleasure complex?

11 years ago

The clean up was necessary. I wish you all have Happy New 2012. Am I too late with this greeting?

@Mistymoo, for the past two days I'm deleting your CAPS LOCK comments all over the site. Now you're fighting here. Maybe it's not only your fault, but please read the Comment Policy and behave.

@robertallen1, I like you, and I agree with you almost all the time, but you might want to try to tone down your comments a little bit.

@Everyone Else (@Az excluded), keep it civil.

Yes, the conversation turned into pointless trolling, far off topic.

Now where were we?

11 years ago

I gave up on biology a long time ago. If you intelligent designers are really looking for proof, you need to examine the very fundamentals of matter. Biology is basically the "social science" of the natural sciences. Everything and anything within it can be explained by increasingly natural fields. There is no evidence that directly points to God here. You are fighting a losing battle, go read something besides your Bible, please. Maybe you will avoid such a tremendous embarrassment every time you decide to open your mouth.

11 years ago

Bwarff! Stopped viewing it. Anyhow, at any moment in the evolution of humankind, some, anything may have been necessary to be given to homosapiens to acquire reasoning.

Therefore, Darwin could already had this in mind at the time he set his principles. Did he ever squarely state that there is no God?
Evolution principles don't mean that no God ever seeded human being with reason?


over the edge
11 years ago

holy text explosion batman. i don't see what the big deal is. so Robert doesn't hold back and says what is on his mind. his tone might scare some off or rub some the wrong way but all i care about is if someone is right and can back it up. i have been told i am going to hell many times on this site and if you think about that it is probably the worst thing a religious person can wish on another (in their mind). look if someone wants to be treated with respect i have an idea. when debating with others use logic, provide evidence for your argument back up assertions with facts and if a statement is an assumption or opinion state it that way, don't answer a question with a question or bring up non related topics. see if that helps

11 years ago

Sri Lanka's biggest wildlife reserve and home to hundreds of wild elephants and several leopards.

"The strange thing is we haven't recorded any dead animals," H.D. Ratnayake, deputy director of the national Wildlife Department, told Reuters on Wednesday.

"No elephants are dead, not even a dead hare or rabbit," he added. "I think animals can sense disaster. They have a sixth sense. They know when things are happening."

John Steger
11 years ago

I like it when people say they don't "believe" in the theory of evolution. Like the entire scientific world is just pulling an elaborate practical joke.

11 years ago

@over the edge I do appreciate your last response to me, it showed a level of maturity, that we could disagree but don't get disagreeable. That shows that we didn't evolve from monkeys or that we and monkeys don't share the same or common ancestor. Now you spoke about "bacteria that eats byproducts of nylon which contains an enzyme that allows it to digest it"....Question...Have you done your personal experiment on such or is it just your belief of another's theory? Why I am asking, is because at some point in time you have to believe in something that you have not personally proved or experimented with personally. Take for instance you said that nylon wasn't developed till 1935, can you personally prove that? Having said that! you asked me who created the creator? Now I did answer you in my last blog, the creator was not created because the creator possesses eternal life which in the Hebrew is called Zoe meaning God's own life, that's why Jesus said "I am come that you may have life and that you may have it more abundantly." Now I am not saying that I don't believe in the bacteria experiment, not at all!! because I do know that a bacteria is very intelligent creature, but who gave it, it's intelligence? What school did it attend? The ant is also a very intelligent creature, again what university did it attend? Some years ago there was tsunami that killed almost 300,000 people, but did you know what they discovered? Some-how there wasn't any animals among the dead, are animals more intelligent than human beings? Or is it, that they live by their God given instincts?

11 years ago

I appreciate the reasoned response that you gave and the website that you pointed me to. It really contains a plethora of information that I will enjoy reading. After reading some of the posts and doing some other research, I will apologize for using the examples of irreducible complexity and mathematical impossibility. I still contend that the fossil record is incomplete and open to interpretation. With that being said, the current evidence does seem to support the current theory. As I live and learn, I find that there is more out than I could ever possibly know on my on.

I will amend my statement and say that abiogenesis is a problem for those studying the origins of life itself. There are many different theories out there, and they all seem to fall in and out of favor. Evolution is absolutely independent of abiogenesis.

Again, I want to say that I appreciate your non-combative response. This is a hot topic that seems to bring out the worst in people.

11 years ago

My major concern is not about the veracity of either evolution or the Bible, but rather a harmonious combination of both. Why is it that the ID and evolution camps are so reluctant to work together? Isn't that what science is all about?

The pursuit of knowledge and understanding by observation and experimentation demands an unbiased approach. Currently, evolutionary theory is the scientific conclusion that fits the facts the most. The evidence is there to support most of the claims by evolutionary science. However, the key struggle with evolution has always been trying to explain how that first organism came into being. There has not been a credible experiment that can adequately explain what happened and we cannot observe any processes today that would shed light on how this happened. I would argue that accepting that it did happen is in fact an act of faith.

The theory of ID simply postulates that there is a God behind the development of the natural world and all that it contains. This hypotheses cannot be tested and therefore it will never be accepted as a legitimate scientific theory. However, this does not mean that the scientific questions raised by the ID camp have no validity. The idea of irreducible complexity, mathematical impossibility of evolution, the lack of fossil evidence for macro-evolution, etc. are all questions that need to be addressed and not simply dismissed. That is the value of ID as a science. It plays a role in a system of checks and balances that ensures the accuracy of the scientific data moving forward.

The real question is not the validity of either viewpoints. Rather, I would argue that it is a battle between perceived world views. ID supporters mainly think that evolution does away with God and that the scientists behind it are perpetuating an atheistic worldview. On the other side, evolutionary scientists believe that ID supporters are trying to do away with evolution simply because it does not fit in their ideological viewpoint which would change the foundation of science as we know it. I would argue that neither is very accurate. I am personally a staunch christian and believe that evolution and ID go hand in hand. The creation story as told in Genesis, to me, does not have to be taken as a literal 7 days. In fact, I would argue that it is actually a less complex narrative revealed by God to early man that they could actually understand. There would be no way that early man would be able to understand the concept of billions of years, or a slow, persistent process that resulted in the current creation as we have it. This view does not do away with the idea of "special creation", it just postulates that it took a far longer time period for us to emerge.

When I see the evidence for evolution, I see the complex brushstrokes of a loving Creator that took his time to create the world as it is and who is not done yet.

11 years ago

I am not talking about experiments.Science can do any thing with experiments. What I am saying, if it happened back then naturally then why, is it not happening again today naturally? and nothing can evolve without live. Who give the first being life? and to my educated friend the reason why we can enjoy a chicken after so many generations is because an egg do come back to an egg and the reason why there are still frogs is because tadpoles do come back to tadpoles and the reason why there are still human being in the world, is because a sperm do come back to a sperm, it's the circle of life, the law of resurrection, seed coming back to seed,it is even in music, you start in G and you end in G,it started with God and it will end with GOD.
Now there are two forms of life [1] temporal life [2] eternal life, temporal life has a beginning so it will have an end but eternal life has no beginning so it has no end and that the life that God possesses which is call in the Hebrew Zoe. [A life that never did began so it can never end]Now science cannot teach you these things because these things are divinely revealed it comes from one of the oldest book in the world today, that many scientist have try to disprove but is in the grave today. Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away but not one jot or a tittle [that is a punctuation mark] of my words will in any wise fail. HE SAID IT I BELIEVE IT AND THAT WILL ALWAYS SETTLE IT.

11 years ago

@robertallen1it seems like one thing you are very good at, is attacking people that don't believe your evolution theory, that every things evolve from one thing. Now I may not be as intelligent as you are... so I would like to ask you some questions. You said to me that Darwin did not say that man come from monkey but that they sheared the same ancestors, isn't that the same? because monkey life will always produce monkey life and bird life will always produce more birds, why, because every seed brings forth after it's own kind, naturally speaking. If that is not so, then why don't we get pumpkin when we sow a tomato seed why don't we get watermelon when we sow a lime seed, why don't we get a lion when two zebras mates. "Beginning is the first clear sign of finial results" the way a thing begins will determined how it will end and that is a principle I will like you to look at. Because what nature teaches,that is in perfect harmony with the bible, is the law of Resurrection. As I said before every seed brings forth after it own kind, if that was not so, could you imagine a man going with a woman and producing a dog, or you put your two pit-bulls to mate and they produce a cat or a farmer sow tomatoes in his field and wake up to find rats hanging on his tree, could you imagine what a world that will be? Well that's the world that I am seeing with your evolution theories.

11 years ago


11 years ago

The whole armor of God is supernatural. What is the armor of God? Love. What is love? Scientifically, prove to me there is such a thing as love. Where's it at? How many of us know what it is to love? raise up your hand: love your wife, love your brother, love your friends? Well, I want somebody, some science, to prove to me what part of you is love. Where do you buy it, what drugstore? I want a bunch of it. Love, joy, you got joy? Peace, long-suffering, gentleness, patience, what is it? It's all supernatural.
God is supernatural. You don't scientifically prove God. You believe God. You believe it. If you don't believe it, then a man that says everything that's not scientifically proven, is unorthodox, it's not right, then that man can never be a Christian. He has to believe. By faith we believe God, not by education, not by theology. But by faith you are saved.

11 years ago

I get so fed up of the stupid argument on these threads - where are some kind of moderators - i don;t wish to read this drivel

11 years ago

@over the edge, Why would you won't to refer to your self as over the edge? don't you know that your name is what characterizes you. In response to your question, who created the creator? Now, I could tell you but, I will like to say this to you.... the creator is still alive so ask him and he will tell you, because many people today is behaving as if he is dead. I spoke to him today and he said to me after I wrote my last blog to continue writing, he said, you will receive a lot of attacks and already, he is proven to be right. All I am doing is lifting Him up above science, because He is the Author of life. Again I reiterate that science cannot give life.I know of a man in our generation who testified of a boy being raised from the dead in Finland years before it happen, and while he was in Finland he witness the accident and after praying for the boy in the name of Jesus Christ before many witnesses the boy came back to life, and there are many many other things that took place that is to numerous to mention, so before you go over the edge ask him and he will tell you all that you need to know, he said that he is a re-warder to them that diligently seek him, thank you.

11 years ago

@ robertallen1 disagreeing with someone by attacking their person show a lack of intelligence, so far you have not proven to me that what I said was wrong. Can science give life? if it cannot then it is helpless when it come to giving life. All science does is invent or discover it cannot create,it cannot take nothing and make something out of it, take for example, Darwin said that man come from monkey, were did monkey come from? can someone tell me, if you say it come from the earth then were did the earth come, if you say it was a big bang then what cause the big bang, and can a big bang create variety? you cannot have variety without a design and you cannot have a design without a designer, same as you cannot have a creation without a creator.

11 years ago

God is the author of life, all life come from God. Don't matter how great science is, one thing science cannot do is give something life or bring the dead back to life. Life alone is enough prove and evidence that The Almighty God exist. Science is helpless when it come to life, so then if you did not give yourself live then you are accountable to God for giving life to you. Now there are two forms of life [1] Temporal life [2] Eternal life receiving the eternal life depends on what you do with the temporal life that has been given to you, it like an investment so don't let science rob you of something that it cannot under no circumstance give to you.

11 years ago

And who might that be?

11 years ago

Nope! We were never monkeys, not even a little bit, although the way some people act, it makes you wonder. (satire)

11 years ago

It has always been pretty much common sense to me, that if we came from monkeys, we would still be monkeys. Simplicity!

Virus Tera
11 years ago

This site is great! One stop shop to many documentaries...Cheers to the owner...Thank you so very much sir :-)

there are A few Doubts ...

What was there before the Random Evolution took place... I rely on Evolutionist to explain?
(creationist I already know ur answer ... Designer :-S )

What made humans think a phenomenon called "God"?

Naturally, why not people were simply Atheist? - As now some people claim to be?

How did they get this God Delusion?

Why did human want to put this God or Intelligent Designer above them, like some one controlling them(like an Authority)? please give a scientific explanation not a Zeitgeist(another group of controversial theory people) one!!!!

Why is there not an Equivalent or subordinate or probably a better being like Humans on earth to challenge humans(our) views or atleast hold the same view? WHY ARE WE ALONE PUZZLED WITH ALL SORT OF KNOWLEDGE? (I believe this could help us solve this Evolution/Intelligent Design war once for all right?)

Why are not Evolutionary or Intelligent Design theorist are trying to think about the above question?

Why should not human knowledge of God be considered as an progress towards the right direction in the Evolutionary or Intelligent Design process?

Why do we look down upon our Cannibals brethren? Why is not eating human considered as some sort of EVOLVED ALTRUISM? It really hurts...

Based on the description given by the admin of this forum about what is Scientific:

If Empiricism is the basis of science and science help us understand the universe around? then There should be no scope in science of what ever nature to speak about God,Angels,fairies,hobbits or whatever supernatural, because they are not Empirically observable? So If there is no such Scope in Science why are Evolutionary Atheist like Richard Dawkins being so dogmatic(just like the religious person) in propagating Atheism in the name of Science? One can not scientifically prove or disprove of what one cannot Empirically Observer
It looks so ridiculous of him or any Atheist....It almost seem like all Atheist are bas**rds & desperately searching for their father and ATHEIST HAVE HIJACKED SCIENCE AS THEIR FATHER...

Especially Dawkins being a scientist and having such vast experience...the behavior he exhibit was the last thing to be expected from him...very shameful indeed...If Dawkins behavior should be considered as a common benchmark of Atheistic behavior then I think we are better off with the religious folks...WE DONT WANT ANOTHER STALIN(s)!!!

11 years ago

Fair enough. Also, for the record, I do believe that there is evidence for the evolution of species but I only see that the fossil record shows evolution among the respective classes. A common ancestry of elephants or horses for example are found in the fossil record and one can debate that there are distinctive gaps in their tree's that deny modern elephants are related to the so called pre-historic original.

But I see no evidence based in the fossil record indicating different classes sharing a common ancestor. There are no doubt examples provided but they do not prove to me their intended purpose. If anything, they prove that paleontology has discovered a new animal.

Just think of how say, a fish, might emerge from the sea and adapt itself to the land. If the fish does not undergo a rapid modification in terms of its respiratory, excretory and skeletal systems, it will inevitably die. The chain of mutations that needs to come about has to provide the fish with lung and terrestrial kidneys, immediately. Similarly, this mechanism should transform the fins into feet and provide the sort of skin texture that will hold water inside the body. Furthermore, this chain of mutations has to take place during the lifespan of one single animal.

This seems highly improbable.

So, in conclusion, the way that I see it, until research and discovery prove otherwise, is that according to the fossil record I see species evolving into new species within their respective classes (hopefully I am using the correct terminology) and according to DNA and genetic evolution we see similarities shared among all species and relatively all classes. Which is obvious to even the most simple person. Similarities however, in my mind, are just that and prove no common ancestry because I do not view the fossil record as showing common ancestry among classes. But of course that is my opinion and I do not suggest that you Mr. Allen or anyone else reading this must adhere to.

Thank you for a thought provoking and much need intellectual discussion.

I wish you many blessings in whatever means you see blessings come to you.

11 years ago


For a theory to qualify as scientific, it is expected to be:

1. Consistent,
2. Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor),
3. Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively),
4. Empirically testable and falsifiable,
5. Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments,
6. Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it),
7. Progressive (refines previous theories),
8. Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty),

Therefore ID is not science and Evolution is.

11 years ago


Yes, insertion of a supreme being of any nature at all into a scientific equation dilutes science. Because such an insertion is not based on any direct evidence, it is tantamount to ignorance and superstition, the two enemies of science.

As I have explained to you, perhaps not as clearly as I could have, evolution does not deal with how the earth (or for that matter the heavens) began (abiogenesis), only the processes by which things evolve.

At least there's direct evidence for the big bang; there is none for an intelligent designer, only a conjecture out of nowhere.

Remember what I have tried to inculcuate into you, without direct evidence, there is no science.

11 years ago

So is it safe to say that the reason intelligent design is so strongly rejected by evolutionists is because they fear that it is promoting religion?

I fail to see that this is in fact what intelligent design is trying to do. Whether or not one attaches a deity to the title 'Designer' is simply their prerogative is it not? Intelligent design is not anti-science. It looks at all of the scientific discoveries made but comes to a different conclusion than an evolutionist does. Why are these scientists not free to do that?

Fake Name
11 years ago

I have faith, faith that man is at heart "good". I have faith in the sun rising and setting until it can no longer produce nuclear fusion at its core, I have faith in the teachings of the many brilliant men and women who throughout history have worked tirelessly to expand our understanding of the world around us. I must have faith in these things, as I haven't a fraction of the intellect of the people that discovered the many beautiful truths we know of about our world. I however have no faith in any system by which any groups of people are abused, neglected or worse. I have no faith in a religion that can not reconcile itself with reality and even more I have a great deal of disdain for the men and women that preach of faith, while making a great deal of money from the sick, the elderly and the fearful to be healed by their "faith". A lie is a lie no matter how appealing , and ALL lies detract from the truth, which is far more beautiful than any portrait of a "last supper" or cathedral mural.

Fake Name
11 years ago

Haven't any of these people supporting ID ever heard of the "Dark Ages" or the inquisition? Maybe they have an excuse for religions literal attack on all the ancient knowledge of the world? Just for example, in South America countless thousands of years worth of stellar observation has been lost due to the Spanish Catholics desecration of the sites containing the inscriptions that recorded the knowledge of the amazing cultures they found there. When will people learn that the original purpose of religion was to record knowledge, it has been hijacked by those that would hide that knowledge for their own selfish purposes. It is far easier to control an uneducated masses than an intelligent masses.

jonathan jackward
11 years ago

unified field of consciousness is the latest scientific evidence , therefore darwin is wrong and christians are really wrong stop making ridiculas assumptions people and think with your brain do research and advance that is the way to answers

11 years ago


You've hit the nail on the head That's what makes religion pathetic and fradulent.

11 years ago

Religion and intelligent design theory are not one and the same.Is it so inconceivable that the creative process is a work forever in progress ? The creator wasn't allowed to start from scratch? Quantum level behavior is renowned for being 'counter intuitive' and little understood but is totally accepted by the scientific community. The nature of the intelligent designer is beyond us and yet surrounds us within and without.

12 years ago

Thank science I thought this would be Creationist propaganda but so far its quite the opposite. I feared this was in support of ID but after I finished watching its clearly in favor of evolution without actually stating that ID is wrong.

Old Git Tom
12 years ago

Lary Nine,
Friedman was a charlatan, promoted for political reasons - probably his Nobel as well (another story). We've had 30 years of empirical proof of the disastrous results.

It's largely a myth that any golden age of academic freedom ever existed. 17C France realized the economic importance of science, & the gov stepped in, followed by Britain. Go back. In Renaissance Italy, some city-state universities were openly atheist. That was in order to assert the city/merchant indpendence from the Papal states. The pope had his own army - or two; heavy!

So it goes on. Today the drug/food industry waves its funding mojo stick over biology, which clings to the 19C dogma that animals/humans are bio-machines. That is a quaint & unscientific credo of a brutish & ignorant past, retained for economic & political expediency. OGT

Lary Nine
12 years ago

[Did I overreact a little?]