1. Comment #13186 by Roy_H on December 16, 2006 at 4:41 am

I would love to see a discussion between Buggs Bunny or whatever his name is and our very own R.D.

Other Comments by Roy_H

2. Comment #13190 by nonsequitar on December 16, 2006 at 4:53 am

I personally have no problem with anyone expressing their point of view and showing this DVD in schools as long as it's presented alongside evolution in a non-biased way. Ergo, I do worry about the capability of our teachers to create a (relevant and age-applicable) environment of intelligent discourse in this context. Though religious organisations have done a tremendous service for our education (in general!) I do worry that their historic baggage is still foisted on our naive youth. In Ireland it's pretty hard to find school that isn't aligned to one religion or another, and so we'll take the responsibility as parents to educate our kids in religion (not in the making them be religious sense, just "about" religion) and science in the most balanced way we can.

My point is this - everyone has a position, those of us that want to be considered illuminated will value this, and will equip ourselves and our children with the tools to help them decide what's right for them.

Other Comments by nonsequitar

3. Comment #13196 by GregPreston on December 16, 2006 at 5:04 am

I don't even see this as an issue anymore. The ID bregade are just embarrassing themselves because pretty much every school in the UK has binned it.

Also have you noticed that they all seem to have the same gormless expression and manner as if they've been programmed or hypnotized.

Other Comments by GregPreston

4. Comment #13197 by k1mgy on December 16, 2006 at 5:11 am

>>I personally have no problem with anyone
>>expressing their point of view and showing this
>>DVD in schools as long as it's presented
>>alongside evolution in a non-biased way

I personally do. My children will not be the subjects of a national experiment in religious indoctrination through the front door, back door, or by slipping packets under the door.

If you wish to have yours so exposed, do it in the privacy of your own home. You can be the "teacher", or if you like the "preacher".

There we are. Our education system will be transformed from teaching to preaching, thanks to the devolution of science teaching brought about by the vacuous theory of "intelligent" design.

--

BBC paired up a couple of light weights in their short, on-air row. It was very instructive as to the probable level of debate in the field and raises the point that, although Graham Wright spoke well, he could have easily eviscerated the "intelligent" designer with a more formidable argument. Even the presenter was more forceful straight on.

Perhaps RDF may find a "mission" (sorry for the term) in providing copies of The God Delusion or other instruction to the warriors who must take up the battle against Intelligent Stupidity in classrooms, on media, and in the courts.

Other Comments by k1mgy

5. Comment #13204 by Irate Harry on December 16, 2006 at 7:29 am

I do most certainly object to our children being force-fed with ID and such religious crap being taught in schools as a refutation of the scientific method. It steals the teaching and learning band-width.

It also sleazily sets up christianity as a superior world view with the pseudo-scientific rubbish about god based creation and design. The christian theology is no more rational and no less objectionable than that of other theologies. Let the schools discuss such topics under optional courses of 'religious education', if they wish. Then we can at least prepare our children to anticipate fiction and fantasy when they attend such sessions.

Other Comments by Irate Harry

6. Comment #13205 by 42nd on December 16, 2006 at 7:36 am

actually, I have to say that those zombies are great at PR. They completely deny that they are preaching about god or anything, and for someone who doesn't know much about evolution those claims are very convincing.

Other Comments by 42nd

7. Comment #13208 by PositiveAtheist on December 16, 2006 at 7:56 am

That Mr. Buggs Bunny, as you call him, looks like a very quiet, shy, nervous and timid creature. I think that Richard Dawkins or Lewis Wolpert would tear him to pieces.

Other Comments by PositiveAtheist

8. Comment #13215 by John Phillips on December 16, 2006 at 8:28 am

A so called botanist believes there is good evidence to dispute The Theory Of Evolution. Fine, show us the peer reviewed evidence rather than opinion based on belief and we will listen. Until then, keep out of the science classroom and get back to church. To parapahrase, don't you preach in our science class and we won't teach in your church.

Other Comments by John Phillips

9. Comment #13216 by Sailnsouth on December 16, 2006 at 8:37 am

To all those who out of fair play say "why not teach intelligent design":

Read about the Discovery Institute (the backers of present day ID) and their clearly religious, clearly anti-science agenda first.

Intelligent design in its present form is just creationism morphed in a way that hopefully can slip by church state separation laws and convince a gullible public.

ID has produced NO credible arguments or proofs to make it worthy of being taught alongside evolution.

It isn't even a new idea, it has been around since the classical Greeks

Other Comments by Sailnsouth

10. Comment #13230 by Diplo on December 16, 2006 at 9:49 am

Looking at that proponent of ID I'm reminded of what Bill Hicks once said:

"You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day" Yeah, looks like He rushed it."

Other Comments by Diplo

11. Comment #13245 by LB on December 16, 2006 at 11:03 am

If God really did exist he would have cast realplayer into the fiery pits of hell long ago

Other Comments by LB

12. Comment #13256 by Nardo on December 16, 2006 at 12:47 pm

Here's Buggs' bio. http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/RichardBuggs

I wasn't impressed! After McIntosh the other day I thought the Truth in Science lot would be wheeling out their big guns now. I guess they don't have any, just a load of money the Discovery Institute has fleeced from gullible fools.

Other Comments by Nardo

13. Comment #13258 by Niels Thorsen on December 16, 2006 at 1:14 pm

Once again, the ID proponents think there is a debate between ID and evolution. The only debate to be had is between reason and faith.

Maintaining the focus on reason will always provide a position of strength.

Niels

Other Comments by Niels Thorsen

14. Comment #13294 by Aussie on December 16, 2006 at 9:10 pm

Lovely. What a standard of scientific understanding! Proof by analogy no less.

Buggs: "We have just seen a story on the design of a new stadium ......". QED.

This is about as convincing as the following statement. "Water is very harmful to the human body." Why? Well you only have to look at the damage water does to a tin can. Imagine what it will do to your stomach!

Other Comments by Aussie

15. Comment #13369 by matt2112 on December 17, 2006 at 10:00 am

Whooaaahhhh, back up, back up. Did he really say, "There's good evidence against evolution"?

Let's watch it again....well, yes, he did.

I therefore look forward to his receipt of the Nobel Prize.

Other Comments by matt2112

16. Comment #16835 by masterbuilder on January 9, 2007 at 5:17 am

k1mgy on December 16, 2006 at 5:11 am:
>>I personally have no problem with anyone >>expressing their point of view and showing this
>>DVD in schools as long as it's presente
>>alongside evolution in a non-biased way

I personally do. My children will not be the subjects of a national experiment in religious indoctrination through the front door, back door, or by slipping packets under the door.

If you wish to have yours so exposed, do it in the privacy of your own home. You can be the "teacher", or if you like the "preacher".

There we are. Our education system will be transformed from teaching to preaching, thanks to the devolution of science teaching brought about by the vacuous theory of "intelligent" design.

Sorry to say, dear k1mgy, but your children are being indoctrinated in school every day with the doctrine of evolution. Please, you can believe your ancestors have been apes, but do NOT call it science. Atheism is a religion, evolution is their God. Teaching children evolution ist doctrine, not science.

Other Comments by masterbuilder

17. Comment #16837 by masterbuilder on January 9, 2007 at 5:28 am

by Niels Thorsen on December 16, 2006 at 1:14 pm:
Once again, the ID proponents think there is a debate between ID and evolution. The only debate to be had is between reason and faith.

Maintaining the focus on reason will always provide a position of strength.

It is not between reason and faith. It is between faith and faith. You believe, the universe has evolved, you can not prove it, as nobody can. How can you reasonably tell me, where matter came from in the beginning? Science is good to understand and describe what exists, bot not where it came from. If you start to ask these questions, you are in religion. As I said before: Atheism is a religion and Evolution is their God. I congratulate you for your immense amount of faith you have to believe, that all these things we see around ourselves came just into being without any creator or designer.

Its' like the two men standing in front of Mount Rushmore and the christian said to the atheist: Isn't that great, how the wind carved these faces out of the rock? No way did the wind do this, the atheist answered. The christian went further and said: How long, do you think it took the wind to do it? There is absolute no way, the wind could do it, no matter how much time he had, the atheist replied. So why then do you believe, that the much more complex systems of this earth have been created by less than the wind in a long time?

Other Comments by masterbuilder

18. Comment #16839 by flashbaby on January 9, 2007 at 5:31 am

troll alert

Other Comments by flashbaby

19. Comment #16840 by epeeist on January 9, 2007 at 5:53 am

Mr. Buggs is active in the Guardian today - http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1985698,00.html

Equally answered as Tobias Jones was the other day. The Guardian is getting some stick as well for printing such rubbish.

Other Comments by epeeist

20. Comment #16842 by jeff_n on January 9, 2007 at 6:28 am

Dear masterbuilder,

The theory of evolution is a staggeringly simple and devastatingly parsimonious explanation of the diversity of life. Its truth should be blindingly obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to understand it. It is simply one of the most beautiful things we have. It works like this:

1. In any population, all individuals are different and some will therefore be better equipped to survive than others in the particular ecological niche the population occupies.

2. Those better equipped to survive will tend to leave more offspring than those that are less well equipped (because the less fit individuals will be less likely to survive long enough to breed).

3. An individuals offspring tend to be similar to their parents because they inherit the genetic information that shaped their parents. This means that, over time, the population will tend to become dominated by individuals who are very well equipped to survive in the ecological niche they occupy.

4. Occasionally, populations become split into two or more isolated groups for one reason or another. The environments the different groups find themselves in are unlikely to be identical (think: different food sources, different predators, taller trees, longer grass, etc.) so the different groups will face different selection pressures.

5. These different selection pressures will tend to produce populations that are good at surviving under those pressures so the populations will tend to drift apart.

6. Eventually, the different populations become so different from one another that they can no longer interbreed. They have become different species.

7. These processes have been going on for hundreds of millions of years so we now see millions of different species superbly adapted to survive in a myriad of ecological niches.

On this view, all life on Earth is related (not just humans and apes). You share common ancestors with every living thing, from chimpanzees to mushrooms to the bacteria living in your intestines. That is a truly awe-inspiring thought.

Christianity is also, of course, a theory. The theory goes like this:

1. A supernatural being called God created the universe in six days and created man in his own image.

2. Man sinned against God (of course, God knew this would happen all along because he's omniscient).

3. According to God's rules, man cannot be forgiven without the shedding of blood. Nevertheless, God can be appeased by piling all the sins of man onto one individual (in the manner of the ancient Greek notion of a "scapegoat") and then killing him.

4. God feels compassion for man so he becomes human and has himself executed in order to appease himself!

This is a half-baked idea and should be rejected as such by anyone who thinks about it.

Just drop it. Free your mind.

Other Comments by jeff_n

21. Comment #16844 by jeff_n on January 9, 2007 at 6:46 am

Masterbuilder says:
"Its' like the two men standing in front of Mount Rushmore and the christian said to the atheist: Isn't that great, how the wind carved these faces out of the rock? No way did the wind do this, the atheist answered. The christian went further and said: How long, do you think it took the wind to do it? There is absolute no way, the wind could do it, no matter how much time he had, the atheist replied. So why then do you believe, that the much more complex systems of this earth have been created by less than the wind in a long time?"

The particular shapes on Mount Rushmore represent ordered information - ordered according to the criteria of a human designer. The particular shapes of the Norwegian fjords also represent a vast amount of information - but it's not ordered information (much like the pattern of fallen leaves on a forest floor). The fjords were not produced by a designer, they were produced by the immense power of glaciers during a succession of ice ages, the last of which ended about 10,000 years before the world began according to your reckoning!

Other Comments by jeff_n

22. Comment #16854 by masterbuilder on January 9, 2007 at 8:13 am

by jeff_n on January 9, 2007 at 6:28 am:
The theory of evolution is a staggeringly simple and devastatingly parsimonious explanation of the diversity of life. Its truth should be blindingly obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to understand it. It is simply one of the most beautiful things we have.

There you go! This is your beautiful creed! You see, you only explained microevolution to me. I know there are mutations and I know there is development. But you have not explained how the univerese came into existence. You have not explained ho life originated. You have not explained how new species originated. I know why. Because it never happened. If I have to choose between the two alternatives you describe on what to believe, I gladly choose the second one. I am saved and cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ, and so you can be. It's all a matter of faith, not science. (by the way: "blindingly obvious!" - what contradiction is this? But you propably said exactly what it is all about: you are blinded by your presuppositions and that's why it seems "obvious" to you)

Other Comments by masterbuilder

23. Comment #16855 by masterbuilder on January 9, 2007 at 8:20 am

by jeff_n on January 9, 2007 at 6:46 am:
The particular shapes on Mount Rushmore represent ordered information - ordered according to the criteria of a human designer. The particular shapes of the Norwegian fjords also represent a vast amount of information - but it's not ordered information (much like the pattern of fallen leaves on a forest floor). The fjords were not produced by a designer, they were produced by the immense power of glaciers during a succession of ice ages, the last of which ended about 10,000 years before the world began according to your reckoning!

Just in case you didn't get it. I'm not talking about some fjords in norway. Is the complexity of the human eyeball unordered information? Wow, how much faith you need to believe that? Even Charley said, if there would be a structure that is so complex that it is not possible for it to be evolved in stages, his own theory would be questionable. Even Charley himself had enough common sense to know the truth. Sad, that his followers do not!

Other Comments by masterbuilder

24. Comment #16856 by masterbuilder on January 9, 2007 at 8:26 am

by flashbaby on January 9, 2007 at 5:31 am:
troll alert

Hi flashbaby
This is your only response? How can I take you serious if you just call me a troll, even though you don't know me. And this happens in a "clear-thinking oasis"? But this is as always, the speechless response of a brainwashed Evolutionist if he has no more arguments. If I have a scientific question on what Evolutionist claim, why is it, that nobody answers me scientifically, but only puts me in the evangelical-fundamental corner of a religious fool. That is the easiest way to avoid the real confrontation.

Other Comments by masterbuilder

25. Comment #16860 by jeff_n on January 9, 2007 at 8:58 am

masterbuilder says:

"There you go! This is your beautiful creed!"

It's not a beautiful "creed", it's a beautiful explanation - like a beautiful mathematical theorem that explains a great deal in a single equation. I hope one day you'll see it. It will enrich your life far more than the consolation of Iron Age superstition.

I don't know how the universe came into existence or how life originated and nor does anyone else, but we do know a great deal about the universe and and about life itself - far more than you might think possible if you don't appreciate the cumulative nature of scientific enquiry. We may never have a full understanding of these things but that doesn't mean we should give up and try to convince ourselves that some ancient Middle Eastern creation myth is literally true or that a disparate set of contadictory texts from a variety of ancient cultures is the inerrant word of the ultimate reality of the universe. Why do you feel the need for such certainty?

Lastly, I must say I find the notion of being "cleansed by the blood" of anyone incredibly chilling, and so, I'm sure, would you if you weren't locked in the psychological feedback loop fostered by fudamentalism of any kind. Most Christians are not fundamentalists and are just as bemused by your beliefs as I am.

Other Comments by jeff_n

26. Comment #16863 by jeff_n on January 9, 2007 at 9:12 am

masterbuilder says:

"Is the complexity of the human eyeball unordered information?"

No, of course not. The environment and the mechanism of natural selection provide the order. I know it's difficult to grasp, but the evolution of the human eyeball is readily explained by natural selection. Here's how:

"The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch."

(From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html)

If you want further information, all you have to do is Google for it.

Other Comments by jeff_n

27. Comment #16865 by Lionel A on January 9, 2007 at 9:40 am

Dr Richard Buggs (I hope you read this, you probably will but not bother to reply):

In the video clip you stated:
'We are seeking to have the evidence against evolution taught..'

What evidence do you have for doing this?

Further at:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2392177,00.html

You state: 'We [Truth in Science] are commited to truthfulness and good science..'

So why try and put creationism on the same level as evolution?

I note with some dismay that at:

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/blogcategory/51/63/

you roll out a list of twelve senior academics, some un-named, who are supposedly supporting your efforts. Their scientific credibility has surely now been damaged.

If you are the result of intelligent design then why do you need to wear spectacles?

Other Comments by Lionel A

28. Comment #16866 by Lionel A on January 9, 2007 at 9:43 am

I would like to remind our contributors of the fact that the Scientologists are also having a go, see:

http://www.disinterestedparty.com/

Other Comments by Lionel A

29. Comment #16870 by masterbuilder on January 9, 2007 at 10:02 am

by jeff_n on January 9, 2007 at 9:12 am:
"The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

And by chance there was at the same time a nerve, that connectedt the light-sensitive spot with the brain of the (whatever)being (if it already had one) so that he could process the information and gain advantage of it. This is so stupid! The eye is just too complex to be evolved. Sorry, What you are telling is just fairy tales! I am so sorry for you!

Other Comments by masterbuilder

30. Comment #16871 by masterbuilder on January 9, 2007 at 10:15 am

by jeff_n on January 9, 2007 at 8:58 am:
It will enrich your life far more than the consolation of Iron Age superstition.

I am not caught by iron age superstition. I believe the bible! I agree, that the church did a poor job in te past. That's why guys like you have gained so much ground. But things will change, I promise you.
I will never be enriched by the idea, that I am a chemo-biological clump of cells, my ancestor is an ameba and after my death I just pass away and be found no more.
I am enriched by the idea, that there is a loving God, who has created me, and I have a purpose and destiniy in life an eternity. Sorry I do not want to change places with you.

Other Comments by masterbuilder

31. Comment #16879 by jeff_n on January 9, 2007 at 11:09 am

masterbuilder says:
"I am enriched by the idea, that there is a loving God, who has created me, and I have a purpose and destiniy in life an eternity. Sorry I do not want to change places with you."

And I wouldn't deny you your consoling fantasy if you really need it. But I do object when you allow your churches to be taken over by right-wing bigots who want to impose their will on the rest of us.

Other Comments by jeff_n

32. Comment #16896 by masterbuilder on January 9, 2007 at 1:33 pm

by jeff_n on January 9, 2007 at 11:09 am:
And I wouldn't deny you your consoling fantasy if you really need it. But I do object when you allow your churches to be taken over by right-wing bigots who want to impose their will on the rest of us.

Hi jeff_n, thank you that you brought it to the point where it really is. I am sorry, but I have not much knowledge about right wing politics in the US. I live in Germany. However, you unmasked the real character of the discussion. It is political. It is not about truth. There are clear agendas behind the discussed views. You can call Christians bigots as long as you want, but it seems to me, that you have forgotten, who has really brought civlisation, progress and freedom to the society. It was the protestant christians which were persecuted over here in Europe and which founded your country to live in freedom of their own belief. You americans should remember this. As I said before: you can believe whatever you want, but do not call it science. When I hear some of the ideas of Mr. Dawkins, I suppose he also fights for his believes and wants to take over society and impose his will on the rest of us. Let's see, who wins!

Other Comments by masterbuilder

33. Comment #16901 by jeff_n on January 9, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Actually, I live in England and I've never met a fundamentalist Christian. In fact I can't think of anyone I know who would describe themselves as a Christian. I know a couple of fundamentalist muslims though. Scary people.

Other Comments by jeff_n

34. Comment #16903 by Dylan Dog on January 9, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Oh no! anaother wah wah who believes the world started 6000 years ago, in 6 days with a talking snake!

I am just waiting for the "half-evolved feathers/eyes/lungs etc etc" to make an apperance...

Other Comments by Dylan Dog

35. Comment #16904 by jeff_n on January 9, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Dylan Dog says:
"I am just waiting for the "half-evolved feathers/eyes/lungs etc etc" to make an apperance..."

Scroll up a bit, we did eyes a few posts ago. Apparently, "The eye is just too complex to be evolved". :o)

Other Comments by jeff_n

36. Comment #16906 by masterbuilder on January 9, 2007 at 2:46 pm

Well, you all can make fun of me and of all christians who believe the bible. But that proves just more, that you are in bad need of reasonable arguments. Sarcastic disparagement is not really "clear thinking". Nobody so far explained to me the evolution of the eye. jeff_n did a nice try, but it is just ridicoulous. If I am such a troll and a wah wah, then please ... give me the explanation of the evolution of the eye. Your sarcasm is not enough to me.

Other Comments by masterbuilder

37. Comment #16908 by jeff_n on January 9, 2007 at 2:48 pm

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

Other Comments by jeff_n

38. Comment #16910 by masterbuilder on January 9, 2007 at 2:56 pm

by the way ... jeff_n. I was also at the evolution library at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html and so I know, that you know the copy/paste function of your computer. Not very intentively! As I said, it is a nice try to explain, but the question remains ... how could this being process the information of light sensitive spot on his skin so that he could flee from his predator. For this three components have to evolve at the same time in one being: light sensitive spot on his skin, the area in the brain that processes sight and a nerve that passes the information from the skin to the brain. You can tell me whatever you want, but this is just impossible! Sorry!

Other Comments by masterbuilder

39. Comment #16912 by jeff_n on January 9, 2007 at 3:08 pm

(If you scroll up, you'll notice I gave you that link in my post on the subject and the stuff I copied and pasted from that site is in quotes.)

If you've already decided it's impossible then there's not much more to say.

Other Comments by jeff_n

40. Comment #16916 by masterbuilder on January 9, 2007 at 3:31 pm

I have not decided it is impossible. I just belive it is impossible. But however I really want to know and I want to learn, even when I am a christian. So I wrote to Prf. Dan-Erik Nilsson who wrote the article and made the video. I hope he will answer me ....

Other Comments by masterbuilder

41. Comment #17002 by jeff_n on January 10, 2007 at 3:41 am

masterbuilder says:
"For this three components have to evolve at the same time in one being: light sensitive spot on his skin, the area in the brain that processes sight and a nerve that passes the information from the skin to the brain."

I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I can easily imagine how these three components could evolve in parallel. Photosynthesising bacteria will swim towards light and they are single-cell organisms, so here we have an example of all three functions happening in the same cell. With the advent of mutlti-cell organisms where individual cells develop specialised functions (and communicate with one another through chemical and/or electrical signalling), the functions you describe simply become distributed among a group of cells. Furthermore, there is not really a distinction between "nerve cells" and "brain cells" at this stage. "Nerve cells" are neurons and a primitive brain is just a cluster of neurons.

Other Comments by jeff_n

42. Comment #18397 by mnewball on January 20, 2007 at 2:51 pm

As much a great admirer of Richard Dawkins I may be, and as much a neo-darwinist I am, I certainly see no problem of introducing Intelligent Design into schools. Students should be able to form their own scientific criteria. If they only believe what they are being taught, if they believe blindly in evolutionary science, then this would mean there isn't a real grasp on the subject at all. This means the student is just memetizing knowledge, but not really interiorizing it.

Intelligent Design might be an interesting non-example of creationism. Something students might debate against evolution, and gain a better understanding of the theory, by just asking those same questions ID postulates. ID might be a great research tool for young students.

Other Comments by mnewball