The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

The Case for Evolution

Posted by iusbvision on February 10, 2007

Evolution is the process that explains how generations of organisms change in response to their environment.  This is also known as “natural selection,” and the main reason I believe it occurs is because I can see the proof in ancient fossils. The remains of plants and animals from the past are found to share common features with species alive today. A perfect example is the correlation between the bone structures of the “hands” in marine and terrestrial mammals. Both appendages share five “fingers,” which suggests a common origin.

Another example is the giraffe. Over millions of years the giraffe’s neck has grown longer in order for it to reach high into trees for scarce food.  Giraffes with short necks would have to find other sources of food or they would die. The offspring of giraffes that had a slight height advantage were successful in the environment and produced their own calves that also carried the gene for extra height.  The process continues over generations, resulting in the animal we see today. This supports natural selection.

You can also look at humans evolving. Consider the hair on humans. It must have once served a purpose or we would not have any hair at all.  It could be that the hair was used to protect us from the sun or to keep us warm. Or it could have been a vestige of our ancestry. Yet humans do not have the same amount as other animals. According to some evolutionary models the amount of hair on humans has lessened as time went on, perhaps as a reaction to clothing or domesticated living. One interesting hypothesis is that hair was lost in response to danger caused by mites and lice. Less hair meant less disease. Regardless of the reason, hair textures and amounts differ significantly between populations of people, but we are all human beneath that hair. 

Finally, I believe the theory of evolution is correct is because of the way my parents raised me. I was not brought up with religion so I had to find another way to explain who and why I am. Darwin’s theory of evolution offered me a way to see why we humans are on this planet, and the theory also helped explain why people are different. I am a “proof is in the pudding” kind of guy: if I can’t see it then I don’t believe it. To me it is obvious the process of evolution has occurred because of what scientists have found in the ground. Anthropologists are able to watch, in a sense, creatures that once shared an ancestor with monkeys slowly stand up and begin to walk.  These animals later grow a large brain with which to make tools and succeed in their environment. They eventually became what we are now – humans.

Soon the theory of evolution will also evolve and the truth will be known about the origin of life, and I for one cannot wait! THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING!

Max Maternowski
Guest Writer

37 Responses to “The Case for Evolution”

  1. Sam said

    This was a very brief, anecdotal, frank, cursory and refreshingly personal translation of the enormous weight of scientific evidence in favor of what the vast majority of biologists and other scientitists believe to be the fact of macroevolution. With all due respect, it underestimates – quite profoundly – the actual scientific “case” (not the best term anymore because it implies to some a nonexistent debate among scientists) for common descent, but I don’t mean to criticize it in this regard.

    I would like to add what I consider to be an important point in the context of Max’s piece. Contrary to what many in the U.S. are deliberately and falsely led to believe, a belief in common descent is not necessary predicated upon the lack of religious upbringing, or agnosticism, or atheism. It is based in every instance on an acknowledgment on the sheer weight of the scientific evidence regardless of one’s spiritual upbringing and for many, the two spheres – evolution and ultimately “intelligent design” – are not mutually exclusive ideas. Another way of stating this is that many religious individuals acknowledge the reality of common descent and a world that is closer to five billion years old.

    I would also like to applaud the IUSB Vision staff for introducing several new interesting and contemporary commentaries, notably with more than just one side being advanced per se. Well done.

  2. Kevin C. said

    Ok. If this is not a practical joke, then there is no hope at the Vision. This is quite possibly the worst argument for evolution I have ever seen. According to the article, evolution is correct because: a) terrestrial and aquatic animals have similar bone structures, b) giraffes have long necks, c) humans have hair, and d) my parents told me so. Now don’t get me wrong, I believe in evolution just like most moderately educated people. But these arguments are terrible.
    Now, the reason I think this is a practical joke is two-fold. First, what more ironic argument could you have for evolution than the grounds that you believe in evolution because your parents told you so. It’s ironic because this is the very same argument raised against creationists: you just believe in God because your parents told you so. This is the mark of satire. Secondly, the clincher is the repeated phrase, “The proof is in the pudding.” Of course, “pudding” is a dessert. I’m pretty sure this article is a hoax. Just read it. The proof is in the putting.
    As a side note. It’s amazing to me that every time I read an article on this website, I have exactly two interpretive options: a) believe that it is the worst article I’ve ever read, or b) believe it’s the funniest satire I’ve ever read. I’m not trying to be mean here, just honest.

  3. Sam said

    Kevin,

    We’re on the same side so to speak, so please do not construe my comments below as an important contradiction to what you have said.

    This particular commentary was not intended as a practical joke. The Vision did not bother to provide any background with respect to Max Maternowski, which was fine by me, but I don’t believe that they selected a truly clueless individual to represent the evolution side. In other words, I doubt that they construed Mr. Maternowski as ignorant opposition in order to setp up a true “straw man” (a phrase that Chuck Nortoin often utilizes but is too stupid to do so correctly). They simply found a statistically unlikely IUSB individual willing to provide a very brief argument in favor of common descent.

    Most – but not all (please take note of this, everyone reading) – of what goes on here boils down to surprisingly ignorant and uninformed pseudo-debate among undergraduate students who simply don’t know much about their subject matter.

  4. Rachel Custer said

    Okay, so we can’t win. (Although thank you, Sam, for acknowledging what we were trying to do here in a kind way.) The Vision gets lambasted for not printing both sides of an argument, so we make a special effort to do so, and we get lambasted for presenting the “other” side of the argument in an insufficient way. Kevin, if you feel you can do a better job, instead of simply posting things that are not helpful, why don’t you write a letter to the editor outlining what you feel are the best arguments for evolution. I’m not trying to be rude, but it gets frustrating; apparently we can’t please certain people no matter what we do, so I invite those people to do the better job that they apparently think they can always do.

  5. Sam said

    Rachel,

    Yes, you can win. Your staff did so at once by way of posting these latest issues.

    Even though I apparently agree with some of his opinions, I do not agree that this thread was a practical joke. I believe that it was well-intended by the IUSB Vision staff.

  6. Kevin C. said

    Come on, Rachel. You guys publish an article in which the final line reads in giant letters “The proof is in the PUDDING,” and I’m NOT supposed to find it ridiculous?

  7. anonymous said

    Kevin C,

    Do yourself a favor and look up the history of the phrase, “the proof is in the pudding”. It is absolutely appropriate in this case, i.e. the results are what matters. The strongest arguments for evolution are indeed predicated on that notion. I often agree with your intended meaning, but you really aren’t helping your case by ignorantly lashing out at a well-intentioned post.

  8. Rachel Custer said

    Kevin,

    After your second post, I wonder what your issue is with the phrase “the proof is in the pudding.” That IS the actual phrase, you know. It comes from the phrase “the proof of the pudding is in the eating.”

    Sam,

    You’re right. There are subjects about which we don’t know a lot. That is why we ARE undergraduates – so we can learn. However, when we try to question and learn, we get ridiculed and brow-beaten. It is frankly surprising to hear you speak so derisively of undergraduate debate, seeing as how you are a college professor. Do you really feel like this about your students? Perhaps there are things you can learn.

  9. Sam said

    The problem is that you guys don’t ask legitimate questions in a neutral format. You put up an absurdly conservative website and portray it as being somehow represensitive of your college. The writing is pathetic. It isn’t journalism, for that as well as for other reasons.

    Since when has Chuck Norton insinuated that he’s in this business in part for the learning? Don’t you dare insinuate that any proferssorial input from my end would be appreciated by your staff.

    Give me a break. You guys aren’t in this to learn anything. All you want to do is spout off your extreme conservative views on anything under the sun.

    I don’t feel this way about my own students at all. Quite the contrary.

    You, on the other hand, have a major problem. You guys pretend that you know a lot about subjects that, in reality, you know very little about. Almost nothing. Simply put, you’re an ultra-conservative (and I mean ULTRA) college blog with a very simple purpose, and that is to advocate an ultra-conservative agenda. It never varies.

    “Do you really feel like this about your students?”

    Stop stuffing words into my mouth or insinuating anything like it, Rachel or whoever you are. You made the insinuation that I must “really” feel this way about my own students.

    Kiss my ass.

    Grow up one day, and turn into an actual college newspaper. I shant hold my breath.

  10. Rachel Custer said

    Sam,

    I’m sorry that what I said appears to have angered you so much. It was not meant as a personal attack. I can’t speak for the other people on this blog, be they Vision staff or not. But I can assure you, I am here to learn. I was merely making the point that, while you and I have gotten along beautifully in the past, as soon as I ask a question regarding something you view as fact, you immediately lump me in with some notion you have of “ultra-conservative religious fundamentalist.” You say our only purpose is to advocate this ultra-conservative agenda, but there have been many times in the past when I and others have disagreed with this agenda in certain ways, and yet, as soon as we agree in one point, or even just question one point, we are “ultra-conservatives.” You mentioned on another thread how it was good that we presented both sides of the argument. If we were only here to promote the ultra-conservative agenda, as you insinuate, why would we have bothered?

    Oh, and by the way, what exactly is a “legitimate” question? Is it a question that you feel comfortable answering? Is it a question with which you agree? Is it a question that you feel should be asked? By stating that there are legitimate and illegitimate questions, you show your own ideology. In my mind, a question is a question, and answers are important. However, rather than instruct, or teach, which you are welcome to do in my case since I readily admit I am not the most well-versed on current evolutionary evidence, you have chosen to become angry and derisive. Why are your students any different than me? That was the point I was trying to make. They are in your class to learn, I am here to learn. What happens in your classroom when your students ask a question that you do not feel is “legitimate”? If you respond in a different way to them, all I ask is that you respond with the same respect for pursuit of knowledge to me.

  11. Kevin C. said

    Hmmm. I stand corrected on that one. Sorry about that.

  12. Sam said

    I did get a bit heated last night. Sorry about that.

    I don’t teach undergraduates myself by the way, and obviously journalism is not my background. But when students ask questions in my courses, I can assure you that they are treated very respectfully. Fortunately we don’t talk about explosive things like evolution! :):)

    I’ll go back to what I said earlier on, which is that I’m impressed you guys decided to post some new threads.

    Sam

  13. Rachel Custer said

    Sam,

    I honestly didn’t mean to imply that you are a bad teacher, or that you don’t treat your students with respect. I can see how it might look that way when I re-read my post. I was more trying to use it in the metaphorical sense, putting me in the position of a questioning student (which is, after all, what I am). I would expect nothing less from you than respect for your students, from what I know of you on the blog. Thanks for your compliment about the new threads.

  14. Rachel Custer said

    Oh, and by the way, I am Rachel. (You seemed to have some doubts in your above post.) I have not been taken over by aliens who are using my body to type ultra-conservative propaganda, as far as I know. I am the same me I have always been. Of course, I suppose it’s always possible that the aliens have taken over and used some sort of mind control device so I am not aware of the takeover. Hmmmm…something to think about. :) Have a good day.

  15. Rachel Custer said

    Of interest to the debate. These are highly accomplished scientists.

    http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

  16. Sam said

    Rachel,

    It’s from the Discovery Institute, a political right-wing organization whose primary objective is to attack evolution.

    That list represents a very tiny fraction of the scientists in our country who study evolution. It may look big to you in the absolute sense, but if someone were to compose a list of the scientists who do not challenge common descent, you would be convinced as to how few in number these dissenters truly are.

    But, go ahead. Deny or doubt evolution, as you are bound to do. There is no way your fundamentalist religious inclinations would permit you do otherwise. Go ahead, deny that as well. Just Rachel Custer the student in learning mode, asking innocent questions right?

    There is no “debate” pertaining to the fact of evolution within the scientific community.

  17. Rachel said

    Sam,

    Dictionary.com definition of debate:
    1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
    2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
    3. deliberation; consideration.
    4. Archaic. strife; contention.

    Seems like that is exactly what we see here. Some people think one thing is true, some take the opposing viewpoint. That is the very definition of debate. Do you deny that these people with Ph.D.s in their respective scientific fields are part of the scientific community?

  18. Rachel said

    By the way, the petition is on the Discovery Institute’s website, but the scientists who signed it work for various institutions around the country.

  19. Erkki KochKetola said

    Rachel:

    Allow me to rebut by directing your attention to http://www.talkorigins.org/, which, among other things, has several pages devoted to debunking creationist/”intelligent design” (the same thing by another name) “criticisms” of evolutionary theory.

  20. Erkki KochKetola said

    Sorry, that URL won’t work as posted. WordPress didn’t cut out the comma.

    The proper URL is http://www.talkorigins.org/

  21. Sam said

    Rachel,

    None of those definitions of “debate” is presently occurring within the scientific community at large. Here’s a link worth investigating:

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

    I regret having lost my temper several times as of late. However, discussing issues with you would be much easier if you would simply come out and state your true position. For example, if you don’t believe in common descent, just come out and say so in addition to whatever evidence you feel supports your position (in this case, a list of scientists who question something about it). I would certainly respect that. If you don’t believe that humans have contributed to global warming, fine.

    Incidentally (to answer for a second time a previous question you had), there are of course many Christian scientists and I think no less of their science versus the science of a non-Christian. You should should also know that virtually all scientists who question evolution are conservative Christians. On the other hand, those who acknowledge the reality of macroevolution are a mixed bag.

    There is no underlying atheistic premise driving the continued quest for knowledge about the details of the fact of evolution. It is simply a quest for new knowledge and in the case of evolution, the scientific evidence is beyond overwhelming. For a Christian to embrace evolution (and many do), it becomes necessary to reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. I’m not suggesting that you do so, but as long as you are convinced that God created humans separate from all remaining species a few thousand years back, there isn’t much point in “debating” evolution, is there?

  22. Sam said

    Erkki,

    I checked out Talk Origins because I hadn’t been there in a while. It has been very nicely updated. Thanks for the link. Rachel, many of the questions in the FAQ link seem to be exactly what you’ve been asking. Either link (mine included) should convince you that, at the very least, there is no debate occurring within the scientific community regarding macroevolution as both scientific theory and fact.

  23. Chuck Norton said

    Point 1 –

    To say that someone is disqualified from the discussion because they are Christian, black, female, Asian, childless, or what not shows that you are a bigot and actually disqualifies you from legit debate.

    Point 2 –

    As a matter of science, there is not enough evidence to say with any degree of certainty that evolution is certain or that life started by by accident etc. In fact that are known biological conundrums that could not have evolved by the rules of evolution.

    Also as a matter of science, there is not enough evidence to confirm intelligent design.

    Both involve a leap of faith. The difference is, that in my experience, most who evangelize evolution refuse to admit their faith based judgements.

    …and then there are people like Sam, who make judgements based on hate.

  24. Sam said

    Chuck,

    You are simply wrong. Evolution is considered to be a certainty by the overwhelming majority of scientists. Your personal opinion doesn’t change reality and you STILL have no idea what you are talking about.

    Furthermore, I did not “disqualify” Rachel Custer from offering an opinion on this thread. My comments above stand exactly as they are written.

  25. Chuck Norton said

    Sam,

    Thank you for proving to us that you have made a leap of faith.

    You have also mischaracterized my argument. I said that evolution itself is not well supported by the evidence to make a conclusion with the kind of certainty that you attribute to it. There are glaring holes in it such as the lack of phylum level transitional forms; “The missing link” as they like to call it and other areas.

    No where did I deny that the majority of scientists out there believe in some form of evolution, but they do so accepting its shortfalls and conundrums.

    The majority of scientists also believed (past tense) that the Grand Canyon was made over millions of years in part cut my the river that runs through it…….. that was until Mt. St. Helens erupted and exploded and formed similar strata and rock formations as seen in the Grand Canyon and this happened in minutes. Now, many scientists believe that the Grand Canyon was made in a short time.

    There was a time not long ago when science was certain that time was a constant, now we know better. Even now there are some scientists who believe that even the speed of light might not be a constant as the consensus believes today.

    There was also a time when mathematical models could perfectly predict the motion of the stars, and these models were based on a geocentric solar system… they actually mathematically “proved” that the Earth was the center of the solar system.

    I could spend all day listing these. The point is that the “consensus” can change in a heartbeat with a newly discovered piece of evidence.

  26. Kevin C. said

    Dear All,
    Thank-you for showing me just how ridiculous this weblog is. My only regret is that this week’s conversation did not occur when I first started reading the blog. Then I would have saved myself some time.
    Signing off forever,
    Kevin C.
    P.S. You guys deserve each other.

  27. Rachel Custer said

    Sam,

    Thank you for the response and links. I will check them out. I do want to add, however, that you have made an assumption that I believe “God created humans separate from all remaining species a few thousand years back.” This is in the same vein as the assumption you made about my questions regarding evolution necessarily being based in my religious beliefs. I believe God created humans. I believe the Earth is as old as the archaeological record shows it is. The method God chose to create human beings is not as of much concern to me as the fact that He did create them.

    You asked me to outline what I believe specifically. I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and is God, and that He died for my sins so that I could be justified before God. I believe that God knows more than any human scientist ever will about how the world works; after all, I believe He made it in all its intricacy and beauty. If you would like a quote to back up this belief, I guess I will just quote Romans 3:3-4.

    “What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar.” As long as I believe in God, I believe in the One who is true and the source of all truth.

    That’s what I believe.

    Chuck,

    Some very good points

  28. Rachel Custer said

    Kevin C.

    Sorry you feel that way. Good luck in future endeavors.

  29. Sam said

    Chuck,

    “Thank you for proving to us that you have made a leap of faith.”

    Most scientists (including me) and scientific organizations disagree with you. Macroevolution is not predicated upon a leap of faith. It is based on a near-incomprehensibly huge assortment of peer-reviewed scientific data.

    “You have also mischaracterized my argument. I said that evolution itself is not well supported by the evidence to make a conclusion with the kind of certainty that you attribute to it.”

    I did not mischaracterize your argument at all based on your clarification. It is just as incorrect as the first version. Evolution is suifficientlky founded upon the evidence that it isn’t simply the best scientific theory available to explain speciation, it is a simple fact. Please try to grow a few neurons in your brain titled “appropriately humble” and remember that you are not a scientist and you are not familiar with the refutations of failed anti-evolution arguments, such as:

    “There are glaring holes in it such as the lack of phylum level transitional forms; “The missing link” as they like to call it and other areas.”

    You would also do well to examine the link provided by Erkki.

    “No where did I deny that the majority of scientists out there believe in some form of evolution, but they do so accepting its shortfalls and conundrums.”

    Now you’re changing your tune. Here’s what you stated originally:

    “As a matter of science, there is not enough evidence to say with any degree of certainty that evolution is certain or that life started by by accident etc. In fact that are known biological conundrums that could not have evolved by the rules of evolution.”

    Do you see the difference? No? Let me explain. First you stated that there isn’t enough evidence to accept macroevolution with a degree of certainty. You also stated that particular biological entities could not have evolved as define the term (you may be referring to the retina or the rotary bacterial flagellum – who knows – either way, it’s been explained how they likely evolved as well). You are wrong on both counts. Then, however, you retreated by acknowledging that most scientists favor “some sort” of evolution (would that happen to be puntuated equlibrium?) while these same scientists at least admit that we don’t know everything about the precise mechanism(s) of evolution (yet).

    “There was a time not long ago when science was certain that time was a constant, now we know better. Even now there are some scientists who believe that even the speed of light might not be a constant as the consensus believes today.”

    There was a time when half of the U.S. population still did not believe in evolution or common descent. That time is right now.

    “There was also a time when mathematical models could perfectly predict the motion of the stars, and these models were based on a geocentric solar system… they actually mathematically “proved” that the Earth was the center of the solar system.”

    There is a very good book called “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” which addresses this point. My point to you, Rachel, and whoever else happens to be following this thread is to make very clear that at this juncture in time, the fact of macroevolution has been demonstrated in the court of science (unfortunately not U.S. public opinion) well beyond a reasonable doubt.

    You are also incorrect on another issue. Many pro-evolution scientists happen to be Christians as well. The evidence for common descent is overwhelming and undeniable. They don’t allow their religion to cause them to ignore, downplay, or disregard the evidence. Simply put, the scientific theory of evolution is not dogma-driven. On the other hand, the persistent anti-evolution political movement in this country is 100% dogma-driven, and zero percent science-driven. Those are facts.

  30. Sam said

    Rachel,

    I did assume that you were a Christian fundamentalist. Either way, you believe in a God that created humans directly. Is that right? And you believe that Jesus Christ was (is) the son of God, etc. I definitely admire your conviction. It is palpable.

    The point I was trying to make in an earlier post was that I couldn’t quite see how someone with your religious background could ever manage to accept common descent as a biological fact. In contrast to Chuck’s subsequent assertion, I never stated or even suggested that a religious person has no business expressing an opinion on evolution. I DID, however, suggest – very strongly, I might add – that surely your intense religious convictions would prevent you from seriously entertaining the notion of common descent.

  31. Erkki KochKetola said

    Chuck:

    There are glaring holes in it such as the lack of phylum level transitional forms; “The missing link” as they like to call it and other areas.

    Clarify please. Which phylum-level transitional forms in particular?

    The majority of scientists also believed (past tense) that the Grand Canyon was made over millions of years in part cut [b]y the river that runs through it…that was until Mt. St. Helens erupted and exploded and formed similar strata and rock formations as seen in the Grand Canyon and this happened in minutes. Now, many scientists believe that the Grand Canyon was made in a short time.

    Cite source please; were these strata and rock formations actually formed in minutes, or were they simply exposed? Further, the fact that the strata and formations can be created in minutes doesn’t necessarily mean that it didn’t take several millenia (at least) for the Colorado River to expose them. As far as I know, these rocks have been dated, and their ages are fairly well-established. And the only “scientists” that I’ve heard suggesting that the Grand Canyon was made in a short time are Young-Earth Creationists; if you can provide a reference to a reputable scientist who is not a YEC who claims such a thing, by all means, do so.

    There was also a time when mathematical models could perfectly predict the motion of the stars, and these models were based on a geocentric solar system… they actually mathematically “proved” that the Earth was the center of the solar system.

    They didn’t predict the motions of all celestial bodies adequately, otherwise they’d still be in use today. Given the observation tools available at the time, the predicitions matched well enough with what could be observed to be acceptable, but as our ability to observe the motions of the planets improved, we began to realize that the geocentric model didn’t work. The only reason the geocentric model was so widely accepted in Europe is because it fit with the Catholic Church’s pretensions that the Earth was the center of the universe. There were a number of heliocentric traditions already in currency elsewhere in the world (such as India, where several people had already worked out correct values for a number of astronomical constants).

    Even our current astronomical model can’t claim perfection.

  32. Rachel Custer said

    Sam,

    And I state, again, my intense religious convictions leave room for acknowledging that I do not know how God did what He said He did. I believe He did it, and for now, that is sufficient for me. However, Christian fundamentalism as you seem to define it (at least, as Wikipedia defines it) does not necessarily mean, in my mind, that parts of the Bible are not literary in nature or symbolic. For example, in the Song of Solomon, the lover obviously does not literally mean that his beloved’s breasts actually look like two towers; he has used a literary device. I don’t know if God created the world in exactly seven 24 hour days or not and I don’t know the method He used. The important part is that I believe He could, if He so chose, do exactly that, and I believe that He is the creator. God could create the universe in seven literal days; He is also certainly able to create the world in other ways. As I learn more, perhaps I will lean one way or the other, but for now, faith that He did it is sufficient for me.

    Also, interestingly, the talkorigins.org webpage is sponsored by “The Panda’s Thumb,” a weblog created to “critique the claims of the anti-evolution movement” – clearly not an unbiased website without its own ideological base. Just an observation.

  33. Erkki KochKetola said

    Rachel,

    The TalkOrigins Archive is maintained by volunteers, and is largely a compliation of posts to the talk.origins newsgroup. The TalkOrigins Foundation also happens to host The Panda’s Thumb (a blog, maintained by someone else). They also host TalkDesign, which is devoted to analyzing the Intelligent Design movement. No, clearly, they’re not unbiased, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be relatively objective. I should note that there are sites out there, run by IDers/Creationists, that attempt to critique the TalkOrigins Acrhive. If you can demonstrate significant misunderstandings on the part of the TalkOrigins Archive, I’m sure they would be happy to correct them.

  34. Sam said

    Rachel,

    Absolutely – the talkorigins website is indeed “biased” in favor of evolution, not unlike the idea that the warning signs on cigarette packs are “biased” in favor of the “theory” that smoking causes lung cancer.

    The politically-driven movement against the reality of common descent does not deserve “equal” representation or coverage. This isn’t the Grammy Awards. Evolution is absolutely correct. The arguments it are absolutely wrong. That changes things.

    I truly worry about the educational system in our country in this respect. People are still trying to erase the separation of church and state.

    Incidentally when you write an entire paragraph with every 5th word being “He”, it’s hard to follow. This is a thread about the case for evolution. There is another thread about the case for intelligent design (anti-evolution). I don’t mean to suggest that I lack respect for your convictions. It’s just that if you are truly interested in the question of evolution irrespective of your religious upbringing, then this sort of religious discourse would not appear to be relevant. On the other hand, perhaps you are crying out that it is indeed quite relevant. I’ll try to avoid putting words into your mouth.

  35. Sam said

    “… the lover obviously does not literally mean that his beloved’s breasts actually look like two towers…”

    Oh my. I missed that one (probably owing to all the “He” references).

    LMAO.

    One could only HOPE!

    :):):)

  36. Rachel Custer said

    Sam,

    Glad you thought that was funny. But the reason I wrote that paragraph is because you asked me what I believed, so I was integrating my beliefs with my questions.

  37. Sam said

    Understood, Rachel.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: