How can you reject Intelligent Design?

Tom, I really liked the mental images you created in order to posit the proof of intelligent design in the first paragraph of your letter; very nice. However, I still cannot believe that some "intelligent" something or other set out to design a dragonfly that would hover over a bird bath in my back yard. No, I can't explain the initial spark that led to the dragonfly we see today; but, unlike the old bearded fellows that sat around the campfires a few thousand years ago, I will not substitute my ability to doubt or question the "why" of things. I refuse to accept, as others do, the simple way out of the enigma by attributing the creation of everything in this world, and in the universe for that matter, to some ONE "intelligent" being. I'll still rely on science to prove the "why" of our existence. It's just too easy, and irresponsible, to accept the feel good answers provided in the musty books written by a host of superstitious authors, and centuries later, "selectively" compiled and bound together by a few mortals (with hidden agendas) during the infancy of the Catholic Church. GGpap

The best I can determine is that Mr Zwemer is refering to Murray Eden and a paper published in the mid 1960's(a quarter of a century before the Human Genome Project began)- "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution" at the Wistar Conference. There were numerous critics to Eden's assumptions. "Among the huge flaws in Eden's paper, pointed out by his critics, is that he somehow calculates, without explanation, that 120 point mutations would require 2,700,000 generations (among other things, he assumes a ridiculously low mutation rate of 1 in 1 million offspring). But in reality, even if only 1 mutation dominates a population every 20 generations, it will only take 2400 generations to complete a 120-point change--and that even assumes only 1 point mutation per generation, yet chromosome mixing and gene-pool variation will naturally produce many at a time, and mix and match as mating proceeds. Moreover, a beneficial gene can dominate a population faster than 20 generations, and will also be subject to further genetic improvements even before it has reached dominance." Richard Carrier referencing C. H. Waddington.

Tom, within the rights granted by God is free will. Everyone can believe what they want.

Great posits Tech!!! After the reading the LTE I was just going to vomit but you saved the day. I feel better now.

What if the designer is not who you were expecting?

This LTE makes me want to visit Wild Birds Unlimited ("Bringing people and nature together"). The whims of God didn't put species where we find them. History, evolution, ecological dispersal and geological changes did. If faith is a gift from God, why isn't reason? Or as Job asked: Why is light given to a man whose way is hid? (A question Darwin came as close to answering as anyone has, IMHO.)

I commend the author of this letter. Well-said! Regardless of whether or not evolution is real.....there must be a higher power that put everything in place.

If you read Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion, he explains, starting on p. 148, this very problem of how, incredible though it seems, Darwin accounted for the development of the eye by its evolvement by gradual degrees. Darwin himself said: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case". Neither has anyone since Darwin's time, despite rigouous efforts. None of the possible cases to support creationism stand up to scientific analysis. Of course a scientist cannot create a dragonfly out of organic soup, and that is a silly statement, but if Tom Zwemmer had read Dawkin's book, he would see just how a dragonfly could have evolved over millions of years. An obvious fallacy of the irreducible complexity arguement, which creationists believe can only be explained by assuming it is the work of an intelligent designer, is that it begs the question of who created the irreducibly complex designer. Evolution, supported by science, not blind faith, leaves no unanswered questions, and is far more convincing than creationism.

Evolution makes it possible, given enough time, for a leopard to change its spots. Sadly, all the time in the world wouldn't change the outdated "faith-based" views of religious nuts like Tom Zwemer. Ironically, those cardinals he likes to watch are among the natural organisms most convincingly explained by evolution. Creationists like to argue that man and dinosaurs coexisted. They never did in the way Creationists believe, but they do today. All today's birds, including cardinals, are in effect living dinosaurs. The fossil record is replete with intermediary forms showing the emergence of feathers, the fusing of claws into short wings, the disappearance of reptilian teeth, larger breastbones, all documented. Even that hovering and flitting dragonfly is a "poster organism" for evolution. If Zwemer ever saw male and female dragonflies fused together in flight, he was watching selfish genes at work. Female dragonflies mate with more than one male, so males will often attach themselves to a female after dragonfly sex to "protect their investment." I could go on and on, but I'd be wasting my time with Zwemer and the rest of you Christian nuts.

After reading a post or two here and some from a previous editorial, I found that there are a few posters who have nothing but scorn and contempt for people who practice religion. According to these posters, religious people, particularly Christians, are dumb, stupid, idiots, fools, delusional, ignorant, and just plain "nuts." Our new President is a practicing Christian. President Obama and his family attended Rev. Wright's Christian church for over 20 years, and each Sunday he attends services at a different Christian church. He has openly professed his Christian faith and quoted Scripture passages in some of his speeches. So logically these posters must regard President Obama and his family with the same contempt that they do the rest of the Christians out there. I can only assume that they would never have voted for a man who, as a Christian, must therefore be dumb, stupid, idiotic, foolish, delusional, ignorant, and just plain nuts.

Evolution may allow for spots to change but theres not enough time for it to change the leopard to a dog or some other animal.

All birds are ancient but they aren't dinosaurs among us. Yes there are similarities among the fossils and todays animals but that doesn't show transitions from one animal to another. In fact, that shows a common designer.

Lets examine our choices. Intelligent Designer creates the world where everything operates on laws or this complex world appeared by chance and the apes in the Columbia zoo are our ancestors.

While our minds seek to find the 'how" of our existence. Our hearts can commune with the source of our existence by exposure to the "Word of God." The believer has a spiritual experience and understanding. Not a scientific conundrum.

Personally, I find it just downright more interesting to look at the world through realism, questioning assumptions, and the pursuit of knowledge than simply accepting a simplistic story based of faith. Faith, frankly, leaves me bored and dissatisfied. As patriciathomas said, everyone can believe what they want. Why then, except for the sake of Christian doctrine, does this conflict over evolution persist? Without the divide that Christianity causes, I believe that both sides of this issue would be more accepting of the other. When competing ideologies contend, especially when faith is involved, the militancy of their defense is heightened. In polytheistic societies like Japan, secular and religious thinkiing coexist and you don't see the divide between religion and science that has caused the culture war in this country. Since religion fulfills a basic human need, no amount of demonstrating to a believer that it is illusion, or no amount of disproving creationism, will ever convince a believer or make religion and faith go away.

hhh: try, just once, to use your brain, the marvelously evolved organ in your head. In my post, I included a set of FACTS which involve irrefutable fossil evidence that over a period of about 50-60 million years, dinosaurs evolved into birds. (And by the way, DNA analysis shoes the same relationship.) IT HAPPENED. So yes, in time one species of animal CAN change into another: a dinosaur into a bird. Rhinos became whales--it's clearly proven in both the fossil and the DNA records. I know you don't want to believe it's true because evolution challenges many of your religious sentiments, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. I could document many, many other examples of one species evolving into another over time, but with a closed mind such as yours, I'd be wasting my time.

The evolution of the eye is fairly well understood moving from simple eye spots to gather light to simple and compound eyes. What is amazing is the same genes regulate this process be it fruit flies, jelly fish, or humans. The simple box jelly fish has eyes similar to a zebra fish upon physical examination although the jelly fish has two eyes in one with two lenses. A good comparative anatomy course will highlight how the ossicles of the ear evolved, fish gills, the arterial tree from the pharyngeal arch artery system, etc. But evolution isn't linear as most people misconceive. Examination of equine (horse) evolution demonstrates changes in size (from small to large to small to large), changes in teeth, and hooves or toes varied back and forth. Evolution doesn't challenge faith-unless you just feel compelled to make the ridiculous argument. Faith and evolution or any science aren't mutually exculsive-that is just absurd. Another misconception is that complexity correlates with your genes, which the complexity of an organism does not correlate with genome size or the number of genes.

Chuchi: When it comes to the science of biology, I know what I am talking about. It is very tiresome to read posts from people who obvious are totally ignorant on the topic. I bet virtually none of the ID posters here, including you, have anything more than the most superficial understanding of evolution and how it works. The most prominent ID'er, Michael Behe, has explained why he believes in "irreducible complexity." I've read his explanation and could give a detailed review of it. Bet most posting ID'ers have not and couldn't explain Behe's reasoning if their lives depended on it. Can you? The reason for all this is religion, specifically Christianity! These morons hear their pastors speak against evolution, or read some fatuous Creationist website, and that's enough for them! So far as Obama is concerned, he has publicly opposed the teaching of ID. My guess is there are many politicians in the US who are religious skeptics but who would never admit it because it would be the end of their political careers. No atheist can be elected to office in this "Christian" country. Intellectually, the US is a Christian police state.

Chuchi, obviously you fail to see the difference between fundamentalist Christian and liberal Christian. The Congrgational Church, largely located in the New England area, and the Presbyterian Church (USA) the liberal wing of the Presbyterian denomination, are of the liberal type, and they are as different from evangelical or fundamentalist Christian churches as to almost be a completely different religion! I don't know what church Obama attends, but I would bet it is one of the liberal types.

Most of us posters here "who have nothing but scorn and contempt for people who practice religion" only have "scorn and contempt towards dumb, stupid, idiotic, foolish, delusional, ignorant, and just plain nuts" practitioners of any faith like Tom Zwemer. Some of us posters actually practice religion ourselves; all of us will defend anyones right to practice but we will not defend their stupidity. Go back a few million years and observe those cardinals and wrens... oh that's right, that's impossible because Earth was only created 6,000 years ago. Religious nut cases of any faith, especially Christians, Muslims, and Jews, deserve nothing but scorn and contempt.

I have to agree with EEL that fundamentalist christianity is propagating blind faith and ignorance-something Christ himself warned against. Further christianity and other faiths such as Islam and Hinduism have historically sought knowledge, enouraged seeking knowledge, and built a whole bunch of universities and colleges in that pursuit. Seems ridiculous to pick one aspect of science and completely reject it and then embrace all others. At least be consistent and live in a cave and use a candle to read your bible. I prefer to enjoy scientific progress and read my bible by incandescent-well fluorescent light or on the internet. hee,hee,hee.

Why is it so hard to believe that both may be true? Maybe the "intellegent design" was evolution? Maybe God set evolution in motion....A good reference is Descarte's theory of "The Great Clockmaker." The theory has more to do with free will than anything else but why can't it appy to evolution as well?

How can "Faith," the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, (Heb 11:1), ever be boring? Only if you have not experienced the substance or the evidence, can this be so. Get it believe it, experience it, it is life changing.

eel, As I implied in a previous post, no amount of showing the believer that religion is illusion will convince them or make religion disappear. Their brains are hardwired. You might just as well try to teach a fish to ride a bicycle. Why bother? Now, if only they weren't so arrogant, by telling us that we are doing Satan's handiwork. That's when I, unfortunately, have difficulty controlling my defensiveness.

Seems every so many months these evolution creation arguments rear their ugly head. I don't see anyone shifting or bothering to read up on the subject to at least discuss it intelligently. You get the impression that God micromanages everything and ecology and biology are non-existent. God creates every snowflake or diamond or every-breath you take. The paradox comes with every ailment or calamity it must also be God's fault ("her" fault just for you EEL you little hottie). Don't blame thimerosal or vaccines on your child's autism or any handicap-blame God. That is preposterous. Oh what a wicked web we weave. Jedex you can imagine, as a christian, the "hell" I get for trying to make arguments about evolution. Hey that is punny. Could it be "Satan" in my best Dana Carvey voice.

Here is my final word on this LTE. Like practically all LTEs in the AC, it is stupid, childish, anti-intellectual, and Christian dogma-soaked. Reading it is torture, and it subtracts from the sum total of enlightenment and adds to the amount of ignorance that is out there. It does what it is supposed to do though, which is preach to the choir of typical CSRA ignoramises. Tom Zwemer should stick to putting up bird feeders and making soup. His fossilized brain is way too dried out to stretch.

EEL: perhaps you will notice that not only did I not direct my comment specifically at you or anyone else (until now, of course). I also did not make one single mention of evolutionary or creationist theory. That is not my argument here. I merely pointed out the fact that some posters regard religious people, particularly Christians, as stupid idiots, delusional fools and "nuts." And our President is a publicly professing Christian. I have no idea what his ideas are about how the universe was made. I have no idea how "liberal" his church is. What I do know is that President Obama takes his family to a Christian church every Sunday, and I have seen him publicly participate in praying to a God you don't believe in. So according to your own statements, that makes him a delusional nut. If you think he is a religious skeptic and is only feigning belief for political expediency, then that makes him a liar. Either way, if you voted for Pres. Obama, then you voted for a man whom, by your own words, you believe is either a fool or a faker. If you dispute that then you are arguing against your own words.

Jedex6: if you really don't believe in it, then indifference is the best defense, not anger. What does it matter if someone else believe in it when you don't? If I don't believe in Satan and someone tells me I'm doing Satan's work, I wouldn't get defensive. I would just laugh and continue with my day. Someone's opinion of you should never bother you if you don't care what they think in the first place.

Chuchi, Jedex can be an angry elf. I know. hee,hee,hee. But we still love em. It is the ole strategy of dehumanizing an opponent so matter the validity of a counter argument it can be dismissed because you are ignorant, stupid, retarded, insane, etc. I call posting here "Civil war" get it. hee,hee,hee. A fitting oxymoron.

What is delightful about the continued posting in the newspaper about creationism and evolution is that they represent the Augusta Chronicle's slant in favor of creationism. Or maybe they just increase traffic on the website. I just keep putting the word out: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html. Answers to questions of human origins are complicated and will not be addressed in a single editorial opinion. Do your homework so that we can raise the argument to something that is intelligent, by design.

Chuchi: Of course you have no idea how many of the Republicans you have voted for are also lying about their religious beliefs. As you know, politicians lie about all sorts of things! As I said, in this country, no one failing to toe the Christian line, at least publicly, can get elected. If an apparently religious public official is actually religious in private, that's OK with me so long as he/she doesn't try to foist religion on me. As I mentioned, Obama has come out publicly against teaching ID (Creationism) in the public schools, so his private views on the matter are irrelevant to me. If he is lying about his Christian views and just going to church for show, so much the better in my view. There are black lies and white lies. That would be a white one!

Chuchi: on your response to jeded6, oh, don't worry, we're laughing all right. We get lots of entertainment out of hearing all of you fundies pontificating on matters about which you so obviously know nothing. It's a sort of black comedy and reinforces our cynical view of the world. Wind up a fundie and hear him bloviate about evolution, sin, and the decline of morality in the good ol' US of A. Truly hysterical, believe me.