At least one of the "four hundred scientists" that the Discovery Institute claims signed their petition against evolution says that he disagrees with it:

Davidson says he was seeking a place where people "believe in a Creator and also believe in science.

"I thought it was refreshing," he says.

Not anymore. He's concluded the institute is an affront to both science and religion.

"When I joined I didn't think they were about bashing evolution. It's pseudo-science, at best ... What they're doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion."

I so resent this effort by the religious nutballs to make me choose between God and Science. Because I think if they continue, they're going to be mighty surprised that if they make me chose between teaching my kids science -- or looking past their anti-scientific bullshit so I can have lower taxes and a (slightly) less oppressive regulatory state -- they're going to be sorely disappointed.

And I say this as a practicing Catholic. God gave all of mankind the light of reason -- and he didn't expect me to check it at the door.

I find that, at the base of any argument opposing the acceptance of the Theory of Evolution, there's a lurking fear of having one's religious dogma questioned or (shudder!) invalidated. Creationism and its "modern" equivalent, Intelligent Design, are firmly rooted in emotionalism, and lack any scientific merit whatsoever. This is nothing new. About 400 years ago, it wasn't the concept of evolution that challenged the prevailing dogma, it was cosmology. Back then, it was considered a heretical offense worthy of torture to state that the Earth is not at the center of the universe. What self-respecting religious person would hold to this view today? Some day, it will be the same way with evolution - the evidence supporting the validity of evolution is just too great. Any religion that is so rigid that it can not accomodate advances in human understanding is as doomed to extinction as was the dodo!

Putting aside the irrational nature of man for a moment, the problem I have with the concept of irreducable complexity is that it's an argument based on the lack of evidence. It's very similar to the arguments that the bible is wrong because no historical record exists for some person mentioned in it. Time after time (after time...) some new stone gets dug up and the supporting historical evidence is produced.

With irreducable complexity, you always have to keep in mind that we're talking about sequences of DNA which appears to be a simple series of instructions (like complex computer software is based on simple machine instructions) for producing essentially mechanical structures. Amazing really. In the argument about getting from A to B to C, the simplicity of the code says there absolutely is a B (numerous even because of the duplicate codes for different proteins.) Evolutionist argue this very fact. IDers are talking about something completely different (but seem to skirt the issue that the potential for B always exists.) Whether B can occur naturally is the question.

While common sense isn't a very reliable guide. To say somethings don't have a designers looks pretty foolish, but that's only an opinion. Of course, it really is all about the irrationality of man.

Creationism and Evolution can live hand in hand.

The theoretical scientist can only theorize (you like that?) about the creation of the universe. Hypothesis only goes so far.

Creationists can tell you about the creation of everything, but can't hold a fact up to the light and prove it.

Can it be that God gave us the evolutionary kick to allow us to use our brains to discover those things we wish to study? I would hesitate to worship a being that requires thankfulness from such an insignificant bug as me after creating the entire universe.

I believe that this universe exists because of the Creation, being that God set the Big Bang into motion and now watches everything. Evolution is a proven science and can prove the existence of mankind. As for whether or not a design is too complex for evolutionary means to assemble, I recall an experiment where scientists took the basic gasses that existed in the dawn of our world and subjected them to conditions liek those that existed back then. Amino acids formed. Being that amino acids are a basic building block of life, I challenge those "too complex" theorists to explain how ANY building blocks of life can exist without divine intervention. A true Creationist would not want that experiment run, since it might prove that life could spring from primordial goo without a devine influence.

Then again, maybe one of God's greatest achievements was Evolution.

The way I see it, the laws of nature that scientists are able to study, only go back to the point of "Let there be---" er, I mean, the Big Bang.

Even the scientists admit that they can't make the math work to describe events believed to have occurred during that event, let alone offer any useful ideas of how things were before.

So that, at least, all comes down to philosophy anyway. Where's the conflict?

A friend of mine -- a conservative Jew -- put it best the other day when she said "I believe in G-d, but I don't think science can prove or disprove his existence, nor do I need or expect it to."

Yep.

"I recall an experiment where... Amino acids formed... explain how ANY building blocks of life can exist without divine intervention."

MAC, I don't understand your point. Some basic science shows that certain amino acids can be produced in certain experiments (in which those amino acids had to be immediately removed from the environment BTW because they decomposed faster than they were created.) Neither a positive or negative results tells us much (and nothing regarding a creator.) Well, it did suggest that getting enough of the stuff of life in a soup bowl or wet clay is really, really difficult although not proved impossible.

We are creators too you know (if you believe we are in his image.) Where we lack knowledge and technology human history shows an ability to overcome. Wisdom is the trait that's usually missing. Sorry, I'm down off my soapbox now!

A different point that bothers me about the IDers is the need to point to '400' scientists in the first place. I understand why they would want creditials for putting forth science. But the thing is, the quantity of people that believe in a thing really has nothing to do with it's truth. A thing is either true or it's not regardless of how many people believe in it. The reason science moves forward is because of the insight of a single person who gradually convinces others.

Just tonight I saw on the tube something about the scientist that put forth the idea that the Moon was formed by a Mars size object hitting the Earth in it's very early history. When he first suggested it, he found himself quite unpopular. Isn't that typical?