I think this is the second time that you accuse me of not knowing much about god or religion. You never did answer my challenge about the Hebrew name of G-d. I think for the moment we should work with the hypothesis that _I_ know a lot about religion and you don't based on my postings here on JU about religion and yours.

They are smarter because they can comment on evolution without making up what evolution is. That makes them a lot smarter than the anti-science crowd who never manage to write even a short article on why they reject evolution that does not misrepresent evolution completely.

There is no "religion of evolution". Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion. I understand the theory and my religion is Judaism, not evolution. It's two different things.

You asked for religious leaders, I gave you the biggest one. If you don't respect him that's your problem. I do respect the Pope.

According to Roman Catholicism G-d's will is whatever his representative on earth decides, so I don't see how they could possibly be hypocrites theologically.

I even wrote a blog entry about a pope on my personal blog:

http://web.mac.com/ajbrehm/Home/Blog/Entries/2008/6/18_Just_a_few_thoughts_on_the_(last)_Pope.html

As for the "Biblical world", there are several worlds that can be described as such. Personally, I consider the "Biblical world" a society based on the stories told in the Bible. And that society is Israel, where what others consider holy scripture is normal folk tales. Biblical tales are much more alive in Israeli society than in western Christian society.

What exactly is "definitive scientific proof"? I think you are confusing science with logic. A theory is the top level in science, there is no level of "scientific fact" above it.

And there are no competing theories any more. The one I mentioned was discredited over a hundred years ago.

Evolution can be demonstrated in labs and has been. The typical experiment is the fruit fly experiment where it is easily demonstrated that a population of fruit flies will branch into two species over several generations.

In effect you are saying that evolution is "more religion than science" because you don't know a lot about it. But the correct solution would be for you to read about evolution rather than spread the idea that evolution is something it isn't.

I recommend Richard Dawkins' books. Once you read two of them (The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker should do) you will know a lot more about evolution and if you really work your way through the books you will understand how the scientific method works and how scientists know what they do know about the origin of species.

We didn't employ eugenics. It goes against our moral standards.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Penn-Teller-Bullshit-Intelligent-Design

Blaming him of generalization here? he didn't say all christians beleive in evolution, the point was to disprove the notion that this is an "atheists vs religious" argument, since so many religious people (as he pointed out, even the pope and vatican) claim there is no conflict.

I did not accuse you I asked you. As far as God's name I will not type it nor do I speak it without just reason. I stipulated this the first time or somewhere in that article. I have not changed my mind on that issue.

in my article that science proved evolution false, I did not misrepresent evolution I quoted Darwin and other proponents of evolution. I am not anti-science and I know you did not accuse me of it I am just stating a fact. I never brought up creation or ID or told people they were ignorant for believing in something they can not prove or test. I left the door open for proof at a later date because I am being as fair as I know how to be.

According to science religion is the belief in the things unseen. The proof is yet to be seen, as I stated before there is some evidence but not enough to make the theory a fact. It may be a working theory but that in itself is something not seen. Based on the available evidence there is not enough to prove it one way or the other, and given the evidence so far there is more that says evolution is not real than real. Just because a bunch of scientists say they believe it does not make it so. Remember all those scientists that said the debate for global warming was over? Where are they now? They have moved on to other projects because global warming was wrong. Try to pin a scientist down on evolution and they get real silly. One even said that ID was possible as long as it was not god that did it. He even suggested that space aliens seeded the Earth bringing life to a lifeless planet. He believes in space aliens? Where is the science in that? There is less proof of space aliens than evolution that is not scientific. Is it?

That is the problem, you said leaders and only produced one. Your statement would lead one to believe that this was fully accepted in the religious world. Just because the Pope is the head of a billion member church does not make him the biggest. There are a billion Christians that do not follow the Pope there are a billion Muslims that don't follow the Pope. The planet has 5 billion people on it and only 1/5 of it follows the Pope. Good numbers but that does not support your claim of many leaders. That was my point.

Which one of the 10 commandments was not broken by the Catholic Church? I won't even go into the book of Levi.

In a vacuum all objects fall at the same speed. It was a theory by Galileo and proven on the moon some 500 years later. A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and either confirmed or denied. The theory of relativity is still a theory because there are so many holes in it that have not been proven. Red shift was a theory but now proven. Air has substance something that was not proven for a while now a fact. Until you can test the theory in a controlled environment and replicate it in other labs, it stays a theory. People latch onto theories in lieu of facts because most theories we see today are very close to being right.

"I think you could quibble over whether we actually “see” evolution in the fossil record (it's going to depend on how you define “evolution”), but Coyne's point is well-taken. He backs it up further with six good reasons for accepting natural selection as an especially important evolutionary mechanism". Jerry Coyne

What I see here is a person saying that it depends on how you define evolution. How many definitions are there that are accepted?

The problem with this experiment is they are not naturally reproducing which I thought was a requirement for evolution. Am I wrong?

Well I thought that if a person is quoting the people in that discipline then one would have to have actually read what they wrote in context in order to quote it properly. Am I wrong with this assumption? I quoted for you Mr. Darwin, Dr, Coyne, and Dr. Rosenhouse. All are supporters of evolution, In fact I don't know of any people that are opposed to evolution that I have ever quoted. Mainly because I have not read anything on ID and all I know about creation is what I read in my bible. I am starting to think that you believe I am a creationist trying to prove or disprove evolution for religious reasons. Is that why you attempt to jump into religion every time someone writes about evolution, are you trying to fight an argument that has not been brought up?

May I suggest you look up Jason Rosenhouse, he is an athiest I think, he has done some good work on the subject.

Okay, so he was arguing a topic that was not under discussion? The only religion I wrote of was the religion of evolution. Please point out in my original articles the mention of God, Creation, or Intelligent Design. You won't because I was talking science not God or lack of a belief in God. This is the problem when you deal with religious fanatics; they always try to side track the discussion so they can argue their point rather than the topic.

I don't need to point it out in the original article, because the way forums works it is entirely valid to reply to someone's reply to the original post, you don't simply ignore every reply and only focus on the original post.

I didn't ask you to speak His name, I asked you to back up your claim that you know more about religion and G-d than I do by telling me what is special about the three letters in his name.

As for evolution, it still isn't a religion. And I as I have told you experiments can be made and have been made. If you CHOOSE to be ignorant of them, I cannot learn anything from you.

I will simply answer your question: Evolution is so important to some people because it is currently the one area of science that religious fundamentalists, especially Muslims and Christians, have chosen to declare wrong.

If you lot decided to declare gravity false (and advocate "intelling pushing" or some such thing), the pro-science crowd would find gravity very important.

And to make this clear: "pro-science" are the people who do experiments, "anti-science" are those who don't and who also don't bother to learn about experiments. It's two different mind sets.

Yes, and none of them said that evolution is a religion.

No, that was mainly because you brought religion into this when you claimed that evolution is one. I cannot let that lie stand, can I?

I will say it again:

Evolution is a scientific theory which does explain where species come from in a way that can be reproduced in engineering and can be verified by experiment.

Judaism is my religion. It describes a history that cannot be reproduced or verified by experiments but is only useful as a legal framework.

Creationism is also a religion (or rather a part of several religions). It also describes a history that cannot be reproduced or verified by experiments. I don't think it's useful for anything.

I wrote this article about experiments in Creationism.

You do if you wish to stay on topic.

You are right it is the conclusion I came to based on what they wrote.

It is not a lie it is an opinion, a theory based on observation.

So what is the difference between scientific theory and theological theory? Both can not be varified or proven, Both explain how we got here, both are valid theories. Until you can show where the spark of life came from evolution is just as valid as saying God made it happen. You put your faith in evolution because you believe in it. You have not seen this take place you have to take the word of people that say they saw it happen in one form or another. Has anyone ever reproduced the spark out of a primordial soup. I know experiments have been tried since I frist started reading about the subject in the 60's and still nothing except once in 1971 when a scientist put in all the chemicals he believed were around in the beginning of the planet and zapped it with electricity and there was some change, it did not last long and he was not able to repeat the experiment and get the same results. Even the scientist belied that he had made an error and something got in to corrupt the experiment.

A lie can be an opinion.

It is wrong and you have been told that it is wrong. That's when it becomes a lie rather than an error.

I don't know what a "theological theory" is but a scientific theory can be verified.

And here we go again.

Evolution does not make any statements about the origin of life.

The idea that it does is a lie told by Creationists and believed by people who don't bother to read what evolution really is.

Darwin's theory explains how ONE species becomes many (the origin of species), without a "designer" and without crossing "species borders". It does NOT explain nor attempt to explain the ORIGIN of life.

You, my friend, are talking about a completely different subject and the experiment you describe has nothing to do with evolution or Darwin's theory. And whatever you might know about the subject of scientific inquiry into the origin of life has nothing, but absolutely nothing, to do with the theory of evolution.

You are not alone. In fact I couldn't find a single article about why evolution is "wrong" that didn't confuse evolution with whatever the author wanted to confuse it, ranging from atheism via origins of life to origins of the universe. But Darwin's theory has nothing to do with any of those.

Here's a good checklist.

Evolution is not about and has nothing to do with:

1. Theism or atheism.

2. The origin of the universe.

3. The origin of life.

4. One species turning into another.*

5. Christianity.

6. Religion.

7. Politics.

Any article mentioning any of those as having anything to do with evolution is not about evolution.

(*Species branch, they do not turn into. Evolution of life works like evolution of languages. English and German have a common ancestor but that common ancestor never "turned into" English or German and never was another language, meaning that there is no point in time where proto-English-German became English or proto-English-German became German.)

An interesting side note: the idea that life originates from certain materials and an electric spark is scientific and it can be verified (and falsified). But it is not evolution.

imagine a guy who goes out at night and stragulates homeless children to death...

He calls it "volunteering in the homeless shelter"....

Now imagine newspapers everywhere are blazing with articles about a person being arrested for "volunteering in the homeless shelter".

This is similar to the intelligent design / creationism advocates issue... before I read anything about it I said "hey, that kinda sounds not so bad, its their right to beleive it and all"... then I read more and I realized it does not deal with the idea that god created you. instead it is made up out of nothing but LIES about SCIENCE (not just evolution, but especially evolution) meant to discredit it in the minds of children, because of the beleif that evolution leads to atheism, and atheism leads to evil.

That IS the crux of the argument, every single major supporter of ID has stated that it is about atheism and its evils. And btw, both are movements are based on a book called of people and pandas. which simply had "creationism" replaced with "intelligent design" after the supreme court ruled creationism unconstitutional... the entirety of the book remained EXACTLY THE SAME and you can find older prints of it that still say creationism...

But again, its not about creationism like the bible, its entirely about evolution and why evolution is "wrong"...

Yes, and it is written by people who at least nominally claim "honesty" as one of their religious principles.

I have had a discussion here on JU where I asked Christians what their Christian values are that are so different from other religions' values. The most common answer was about the "Christian principle of honesty" and an example was giving back money when given incorrect and too much change.

I was stunned.

That level of honesty, for me, was never a part of my religion but always completely normal. I hadn't thought that anybody would think of it as something they did because of their religion.

There are things I do because of my religion and many of them are distinct to my religion and are based on specific values of my religion. But honesty is not of of those values. Honesty is just a universal value common to all of G-d's religions (and to cultures that reject G-d or believe in another god or gods). But Christians seem to think of honesty as a particular Christian value.

Now, there is nothing wrong with that. It's a good and solid value.

But what's a value that doesn't affect what you do? When Creationists write about evolution they completely "forget" about their holy principle and they find nothing wrong with making up complete and utter lies about evolution and teaching them as fact. So insecure are they in their faith, they do not even try to teach it to children without lying to them.

(I am not referring to Paladin 77 specifically, I am now sure that he just misunderstood evolution and then based his further thoughts on the matter on his prejudices, which is a problem distinct from lying.)

Just because you told me it is wrong does not make it wrong, I have not seen any proof that it is wrong, I don't have to accept the word of someone unless you want me to do that on faith. That would make it a religion not science.

Not true! Big Bang can not be varified, Evolution can not be varified, Cold Fusion can not be varified the theory of relativity has not been varified. They are theories because they have not been proven or varified. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon, it does not make it a fact. I think you give too much weight to theory my friend.

Sorry but if the theory works for species why can't it be used to go back to the spark of life? The beginning of all species started with that one spark of life turning a chemical soup into a single celled organism and working its way up to present day.

Sorry, when did we go back to ID? That is not the topic here, evolution is.

That is because you asked a theif that question. If you are a theif or dishonest and you become a Christian than being honest is most important to you. If you were an adulterer then the most improtant thing to you would be being faithful to your spouse. For someone that is so science minded you seem to ask the most loaded questions out of context.

What makes you think that creationists are christians? When I converted to Judism I was challenged at every turn, when I converted to christianity I was challenged again. everything I did or said was so this is what Jews believe? No, it is what I believe. Try to avoid the temtation to lump everyone into one pile to make it easier for you to hate.

I have no misunderstaning of evolution, I have said it more than once I am not on the creationist bandwagon, I know nothing of ID as it does not interest me. You are makeing assumptions about me when no basis in fact. That is unscientific.

Because evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of living organisms from nonliving matter. NOTHING.

This is an entirely different scientific field. To claim that evolution deals with the spark of life is a plain lie meant to discredit it.

Let me tell you something! I am tired of being called a liar for asking questions. I am guessing you are used to dealing with people that argue and will say anything to win the argument. That is not me.

Lets get this theoretical history down on paper.

It all started with the big bang, we don’t know how it started and the closest science can guess is 3 seconds after it started, this explains the universe and all the matter in it.

Then there is the origin of species. Again we don’t know how that started but we guess as to the mechanism that brought us from a single celled organism to all the present day species.

We also have the origin of man, we still can’t explain how man got here, or what species we came from. What we do know is that there were three different species that were similar and we lived with and cross bread with one of them before the other one died out. Those are some interesting gaps in science that no one has been able to answer.

Any theory that is suggested that does not exclude God is rejected out of hand as unscientific,  My pointing out that evolution could not happen within the time frames suggested by science because the atmosphere, and climate were not conducive for any present day animal before one billion years ago, is attacked because? Well no one has explained why just that it is wrong. I never claimed a God did anything I just pointed out the different scientific disciplines that have been verified that gives us a very narrow window for us to go from zero plants and animals to everything on the planet. After the theory of mass extinction by a big rock is when we saw all these new animals but we have no fossil record to explain them and our written history only goes back 10,000 years.

DNA points to a single tribe in Africa as the mother of us all but can’t go back any more than that and that tribe is still around today.

Evolution can be and has been verified.

The Big Bang theory makes predictions about the universe and those symptoms were indeed found.

The theory of relativity has been verified. We use its postulations in nuclear power plants every day.

Cold Fusion is not a theory yet as far as I know. But it can be verified and we will see whether it will work or not.

Oh yes, you do.

And what's worse, you have no willingness to be corrected because anything you are told becomes "religion".

I told you what evolution is and what it isn't. I told you where you can verify what I said. You refuse. That is your right. But it does mean that you do have a misunderstanding of evolution.

I didn't say there were.

I spoke about articles written by Creationists, and since I read English most of those articles tend to be written by "Christian" Creationists.

Yes, because it is.

Scientific theories CANNOT rely on supernatural powers.

You are confusing science with theology again.

Why is evolution so important to some people

End of quote

Bogus question.  All 'why' questions are, particularly when they are predicated on an assumed, and non-existent, agenda.

I said anyone who claims evolution deals with the spark of life is a liar, if you are making that claim then you are not "asking questions", you are lying to discredit evolution. Do you make that claim? or are you willing to at least admit that nobody who promotes evolution claims it is an explanation to the creation of life, but only to the creation of species (and more specifically, the creation of man from earlier species)... You can then deny THAT up and down and say that it is wrong and that humans did not come from an ape, but at least you would be arguing science instead of plainly lying about what your opposition claims.

as for your "history"... it was wrong on so many accounts, and skipped a bunch of steps between "big bang" and "creation of species".

Next you will tell me that it is evolution that claims that the earth is more than 6000 years old and not geology, astronomy (knowledge of steller events, planetary formations, etc), and radiology (carbon dating)

What Taltamir said.

I think the "question" should not be "Why is evolution so important to some people?" because that is easily answered. ("It's science.")

The question should be "Why is fake evolution so important to some people?" whith "fake evolution" being whatever lie Creationists can tell about what evolution is.

Is it really so difficult for people "critical" of evolution at least to write an article about the subject that does not mispresent evolution?

Being "critical" of evolution because of the big bang or because one doesn't believe that "one species turns into another" is about as useful as being critical of gravity because of the colour blue or the fact that invisible pink unicorns don't, apparently, exist.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

I don't believe in gravity.

Show me ONE invisible pink unicorn. I dare you. Show me even one!

You can't? See, there are many problems with the theory of gravity. It's religion.