I really would like to give this book good marks, because I believe the author sincerely thinks he is trying to be an impartial observer in the debate between ID and Evolution. Unfortunately, that impartiality is paper thin and the bias comes out in the questions chosen and the answers given to the point that it becomes annoying. In fact, it would be annoying if the author’s beliefs were exactly the opposite. I’d still find it unbearable to listen to.
You can almost feel the author about to explode with questions and contempt while the “Evolutionist” is talking, while you can almost hear the gushing when the other guys pontificate about absurdities.
To be fair, the author never claims to be 100% impartial, but he certainly stretches his apologies a bit too much for my taste.
I want to conclude with a comment about the other posts. I think I’ll print Ben’s post and frame it. My goodness gracious! Can somebody be more clueless? “Evelution”? Seriously!
That’s just too perfect. Not only he can’t spell, apparently he is not even smart enough to use a spell checker in his browser.
And the “Fred Van West”dude is just too much? So you are an engineer? Fords and Chevys? Really?
Sorry folks, but ID has no place in school except as a footnote. No more than Alchemy or Astrology. ID has just about as much scientific foundation as those two disciplines.
";}s:7:"summary";s:1366:"I really would like to give this book good marks, because I believe the author sincerely thinks he is trying to be an impartial observer in the debate between ID and Evolution. Unfortunately, that impartiality is paper thin and the bias comes out in the questions chosen and the answers given to the point that it becomes annoying. In fact, it would be annoying if the author's beliefs were exactly the opposite. I'd still find it unbearable to listen to. You can almost feel the author about to explode with questions and contempt while the "Evolutionist" is talking, while you can almost hear the gushing when the other guys pontificate about absurdities. To be fair, the author never claims to be 100% impartial, but he certainly stretches his apologies a bit too much for my taste. I want to conclude with a comment about the other posts. I think I'll print Ben's post and frame it. My goodness gracious! Can somebody be more clueless? "Evelution"? Seriously! That's just too perfect. Not only he can't spell, apparently he is not even smart enough to use a spell checker in his browser. And the "Fred Van West"dude is just too much? So you are an engineer? Fords and Chevys? Really? Sorry folks, but ID has no place in school except as a footnote. No more than Alchemy or Astrology. ID has just about as much scientific foundation as those two disciplines.";s:12:"atom_content";s:1482:"I really would like to give this book good marks, because I believe the author sincerely thinks he is trying to be an impartial observer in the debate between ID and Evolution. Unfortunately, that impartiality is paper thin and the bias comes out in the questions chosen and the answers given to the point that it becomes annoying. In fact, it would be annoying if the author’s beliefs were exactly the opposite. I’d still find it unbearable to listen to.
You can almost feel the author about to explode with questions and contempt while the “Evolutionist” is talking, while you can almost hear the gushing when the other guys pontificate about absurdities.
To be fair, the author never claims to be 100% impartial, but he certainly stretches his apologies a bit too much for my taste.
I want to conclude with a comment about the other posts. I think I’ll print Ben’s post and frame it. My goodness gracious! Can somebody be more clueless? “Evelution”? Seriously!
That’s just too perfect. Not only he can’t spell, apparently he is not even smart enough to use a spell checker in his browser.
And the “Fred Van West”dude is just too much? So you are an engineer? Fords and Chevys? Really?
Sorry folks, but ID has no place in school except as a footnote. No more than Alchemy or Astrology. ID has just about as much scientific foundation as those two disciplines.
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1258136788;}i:1;a:10:{s:5:"title";s:16:"By: Simon Prunty";s:4:"link";s:89:"http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/08/14/darwin-or-design/comment-page-1/#comment-316918";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:12:"Simon Prunty";}s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:07:30 +0000";s:4:"guid";s:74:"http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/08/14/darwin-or-design/#comment-316918";s:11:"description";s:623:"Don't you just love irony? Here is another creationist/Intelligent design moron (which one is he? does it really matter?) throwing around his misinformed, uneducated criticisms of Evolution, and just to save the efforts of anybody willing to mock him he has gone ahead and done it himself, by spelling Evolution wrong every single time in his comment (It's called ''evelution'', according to this chimp). Amazing. These people make satirists obsolete. I'd love to believe this comment is a joke in itself and for his sake I hope it is, but I've seen this sort of stupidity from creationists too often to be tempted by that.";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:671:"Don’t you just love irony?
Here is another creationist/Intelligent design moron (which one is he? does it really matter?) throwing around his misinformed, uneducated criticisms of Evolution, and just to save the efforts of anybody willing to mock him he has gone ahead and done it himself, by spelling Evolution wrong every single time in his comment (It’s called ”evelution”, according to this chimp). Amazing. These people make satirists obsolete. I’d love to believe this comment is a joke in itself and for his sake I hope it is, but I’ve seen this sort of stupidity from creationists too often to be tempted by that.
Don’t you just love irony?
Here is another creationist/Intelligent design moron (which one is he? does it really matter?) throwing around his misinformed, uneducated criticisms of Evolution, and just to save the efforts of anybody willing to mock him he has gone ahead and done it himself, by spelling Evolution wrong every single time in his comment (It’s called ”evelution”, according to this chimp). Amazing. These people make satirists obsolete. I’d love to believe this comment is a joke in itself and for his sake I hope it is, but I’ve seen this sort of stupidity from creationists too often to be tempted by that.
I hope everyone that listens to this book knows all the facts and how it takes faith to believe in evelution. Scientists say that evelution has been proven but the experiment lasted 2 days. They had a steak in a box and the next day flys where all over it. the scientists said it was evelution that caused it! The more we watch the universe and our knowledge expands on it, it all dissagrees with darwins ideas. And if humans and apes are so alike then wheres the civalized ape-man? or the crazy ape-human? there should be a fish with legs. or a land animal with no legs. so whats right evelution or creation?
";}s:7:"summary";s:609:"I hope everyone that listens to this book knows all the facts and how it takes faith to believe in evelution. Scientists say that evelution has been proven but the experiment lasted 2 days. They had a steak in a box and the next day flys where all over it. the scientists said it was evelution that caused it! The more we watch the universe and our knowledge expands on it, it all dissagrees with darwins ideas. And if humans and apes are so alike then wheres the civalized ape-man? or the crazy ape-human? there should be a fish with legs. or a land animal with no legs. so whats right evelution or creation?";s:12:"atom_content";s:617:"I hope everyone that listens to this book knows all the facts and how it takes faith to believe in evelution. Scientists say that evelution has been proven but the experiment lasted 2 days. They had a steak in a box and the next day flys where all over it. the scientists said it was evelution that caused it! The more we watch the universe and our knowledge expands on it, it all dissagrees with darwins ideas. And if humans and apes are so alike then wheres the civalized ape-man? or the crazy ape-human? there should be a fish with legs. or a land animal with no legs. so whats right evelution or creation?
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1244607733;}i:3;a:10:{s:5:"title";s:19:"By: Thomas in Korea";s:4:"link";s:89:"http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/08/14/darwin-or-design/comment-page-1/#comment-185243";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:15:"Thomas in Korea";}s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:59:21 +0000";s:4:"guid";s:74:"http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/08/14/darwin-or-design/#comment-185243";s:11:"description";s:846:"Oh boy! Here we go again. It's always fun to watch, read and listen to. Ever since our ancestors first "created" gods to explain the things around them they could not understand ... When one or two scientists out of hundereds of thousands turn religious it's hailed as validation of ID.... When religious leaders of the West lost the authority to persecute "heretics," they've been back peddling ever since with each scientific discovery ... Entire organizations created to preserve the perpetuation of gods created by ingnorant stone age peasants ... Lack of evidence cited as proof that god "must" exist ... In all respects, who really cares? Faith trancends reason. A God could appear today and say he really had nothing to do with our evolution and it would still be interpreted to suit those whose opinions differ. Ad nauseum ...";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:974:"Oh boy! Here we go again. It’s always fun to watch, read and listen to.
Ever since our ancestors first “created” gods to explain the things around them they could not understand …
When one or two scientists out of hundereds of thousands turn religious it’s hailed as validation of ID….
When religious leaders of the West lost the authority to persecute “heretics,” they’ve been back peddling ever since with each scientific discovery …
Entire organizations created to preserve the perpetuation of gods created by ingnorant stone age peasants …
Lack of evidence cited as proof that god “must” exist …
In all respects, who really cares? Faith trancends reason. A God could appear today and say he really had nothing to do with our evolution and it would still be interpreted to suit those whose opinions differ.
Ad nauseum …
";}s:7:"summary";s:846:"Oh boy! Here we go again. It's always fun to watch, read and listen to. Ever since our ancestors first "created" gods to explain the things around them they could not understand ... When one or two scientists out of hundereds of thousands turn religious it's hailed as validation of ID.... When religious leaders of the West lost the authority to persecute "heretics," they've been back peddling ever since with each scientific discovery ... Entire organizations created to preserve the perpetuation of gods created by ingnorant stone age peasants ... Lack of evidence cited as proof that god "must" exist ... In all respects, who really cares? Faith trancends reason. A God could appear today and say he really had nothing to do with our evolution and it would still be interpreted to suit those whose opinions differ. Ad nauseum ...";s:12:"atom_content";s:974:"Oh boy! Here we go again. It’s always fun to watch, read and listen to.
Ever since our ancestors first “created” gods to explain the things around them they could not understand …
When one or two scientists out of hundereds of thousands turn religious it’s hailed as validation of ID….
When religious leaders of the West lost the authority to persecute “heretics,” they’ve been back peddling ever since with each scientific discovery …
Entire organizations created to preserve the perpetuation of gods created by ingnorant stone age peasants …
Lack of evidence cited as proof that god “must” exist …
In all respects, who really cares? Faith trancends reason. A God could appear today and say he really had nothing to do with our evolution and it would still be interpreted to suit those whose opinions differ.
Ad nauseum …
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1213408761;}i:4;a:10:{s:5:"title";s:17:"By: fred van west";s:4:"link";s:88:"http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/08/14/darwin-or-design/comment-page-1/#comment-81849";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:13:"fred van west";}s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 05 Nov 2007 06:52:54 +0000";s:4:"guid";s:73:"http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/08/14/darwin-or-design/#comment-81849";s:11:"description";s:1661:"My contribution to the conversation is to divide the debate on origins into two equal conjectures: Spontaneous Synthesis (SS) and Instigated Synthesis (IS). Spontaneous Synthesis implies the coming together of things with no need for outside assistance. It would be most identifyable as natural Darwinism. Instigated Synthesis would then be the opposite: that some agency was necessary to cause the coming together of things. Based on my humble observations, I find Instigated Synthesis more appealing simply because it matches our observation of the universe: we might see a Ford and a Chevy lined up in a parking lot, but we would not naturally believe that the Ford plant spontaneously started genertating Chevys (or the contrary) despite the fact that millions of operations take place inside the factory and despite an abundant supply of energy. it would be more intiutive to believe that the factory was altered by someone with intelligence (unless you're a Ford fan) which caused the assembly line to start producing something new, despite the common taxonomy of both lines of trucks. Somehow, this argument is lost on most evolutionary biologists and they think that organic mechanisms don't need to abide by the same rules as inorganic mechanisms (and therefore, this belies their own biases. There is a prevailing 'life force' argument that somehow life MUST evolve, but I have yet to hear the WHY let alone the HOW.) I applaud your book at the outset and i plan on listening to the remaining chapters this week on my way to and fro from work. Hopefully, they'll be as captivating as the first chapter! Cheers, Fred van West A humble Engineer";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:1717:"My contribution to the conversation is to divide the debate on origins into two equal conjectures: Spontaneous Synthesis (SS) and Instigated Synthesis (IS). Spontaneous Synthesis implies the coming together of things with no need for outside assistance. It would be most identifyable as natural Darwinism. Instigated Synthesis would then be the opposite: that some agency was necessary to cause the coming together of things. Based on my humble observations, I find Instigated Synthesis more appealing simply because it matches our observation of the universe: we might see a Ford and a Chevy lined up in a parking lot, but we would not naturally believe that the Ford plant spontaneously started genertating Chevys (or the contrary) despite the fact that millions of operations take place inside the factory and despite an abundant supply of energy. it would be more intiutive to believe that the factory was altered by someone with intelligence (unless you’re a Ford fan) which caused the assembly line to start producing something new, despite the common taxonomy of both lines of trucks. Somehow, this argument is lost on most evolutionary biologists and they think that organic mechanisms don’t need to abide by the same rules as inorganic mechanisms (and therefore, this belies their own biases. There is a prevailing ‘life force’ argument that somehow life MUST evolve, but I have yet to hear the WHY let alone the HOW.) I applaud your book at the outset and i plan on listening to the remaining chapters this week on my way to and fro from work. Hopefully, they’ll be as captivating as the first chapter!
Cheers,
Fred van West
A humble Engineer
My contribution to the conversation is to divide the debate on origins into two equal conjectures: Spontaneous Synthesis (SS) and Instigated Synthesis (IS). Spontaneous Synthesis implies the coming together of things with no need for outside assistance. It would be most identifyable as natural Darwinism. Instigated Synthesis would then be the opposite: that some agency was necessary to cause the coming together of things. Based on my humble observations, I find Instigated Synthesis more appealing simply because it matches our observation of the universe: we might see a Ford and a Chevy lined up in a parking lot, but we would not naturally believe that the Ford plant spontaneously started genertating Chevys (or the contrary) despite the fact that millions of operations take place inside the factory and despite an abundant supply of energy. it would be more intiutive to believe that the factory was altered by someone with intelligence (unless you’re a Ford fan) which caused the assembly line to start producing something new, despite the common taxonomy of both lines of trucks. Somehow, this argument is lost on most evolutionary biologists and they think that organic mechanisms don’t need to abide by the same rules as inorganic mechanisms (and therefore, this belies their own biases. There is a prevailing ‘life force’ argument that somehow life MUST evolve, but I have yet to hear the WHY let alone the HOW.) I applaud your book at the outset and i plan on listening to the remaining chapters this week on my way to and fro from work. Hopefully, they’ll be as captivating as the first chapter!
Cheers,
Fred van West
A humble Engineer
The problem with this debate is that neither Evolution or intelligent design can be proven or disproven. The statement that Evolution has stood the test of time is invalid, because its defined in nebulous terms to the point where current evolutionary theory no longer represents Darwin evolution. Darwin expected that future research would clearly show a gradual change in the fossil record over long periods of time. Instead, the fossil record shows complex life developing suddenly over and over again. In fact, evolutionsists revised the ideads of evolution with names like punctuated equilibrium, thereby changing their theories of evolution but pretending that nothing has changed.
Scientists still can not show how positive mutations can develop in one species to create a new species. Evolutionists unscientifically just assume that it happens. (I must happen, since we have no other scientific explanation is the evolutionsists creed).
Intelligent design is just a way of saying Creation without naming any specific religion and pretending to be scientific. I.D. Fans site arguments that since complex machines like the space shuttle can not self assemble, just like complex life can not spontaenous generate. Another argument is even if you had a million monkeys typing randomly that eventually they might create something readable, but it would not matter because the monkeys can’t read and therefore it would not mean anything. Likewise, even if chemicals combined to form the basic building blocks of life, without an intelligent designer to guide it into something viable all you have is garbage. But all these arguments are aimed at discrediting evolution and don’t prove Intelligent design.
Both sides of the fence on the issue try to shoot holes in each other, since they can’t prove their own theory scientifically. In fact both sides look at the same evidence and try to manipulate it to support their own views.
But the God used evolution theory does not work, because Evolution is a purely naturalistic theory with no room for any supernatural explanations. Where Intelligent Design theory does not need evolution. This is just an attempt to compromise on the issue without having to put any real thought into the arguments.
Personally, I think they both should be taught in school because they are the two most popular beliefs for our existence and neither one is any more valid then the other. I. D. allows for a creator without mentioning any specific religion.
";}s:7:"summary";s:2524:"The problem with this debate is that neither Evolution or intelligent design can be proven or disproven. The statement that Evolution has stood the test of time is invalid, because its defined in nebulous terms to the point where current evolutionary theory no longer represents Darwin evolution. Darwin expected that future research would clearly show a gradual change in the fossil record over long periods of time. Instead, the fossil record shows complex life developing suddenly over and over again. In fact, evolutionsists revised the ideads of evolution with names like punctuated equilibrium, thereby changing their theories of evolution but pretending that nothing has changed. Scientists still can not show how positive mutations can develop in one species to create a new species. Evolutionists unscientifically just assume that it happens. (I must happen, since we have no other scientific explanation is the evolutionsists creed). Intelligent design is just a way of saying Creation without naming any specific religion and pretending to be scientific. I.D. Fans site arguments that since complex machines like the space shuttle can not self assemble, just like complex life can not spontaenous generate. Another argument is even if you had a million monkeys typing randomly that eventually they might create something readable, but it would not matter because the monkeys can't read and therefore it would not mean anything. Likewise, even if chemicals combined to form the basic building blocks of life, without an intelligent designer to guide it into something viable all you have is garbage. But all these arguments are aimed at discrediting evolution and don't prove Intelligent design. Both sides of the fence on the issue try to shoot holes in each other, since they can't prove their own theory scientifically. In fact both sides look at the same evidence and try to manipulate it to support their own views. But the God used evolution theory does not work, because Evolution is a purely naturalistic theory with no room for any supernatural explanations. Where Intelligent Design theory does not need evolution. This is just an attempt to compromise on the issue without having to put any real thought into the arguments. Personally, I think they both should be taught in school because they are the two most popular beliefs for our existence and neither one is any more valid then the other. I. D. allows for a creator without mentioning any specific religion.";s:12:"atom_content";s:2580:"The problem with this debate is that neither Evolution or intelligent design can be proven or disproven. The statement that Evolution has stood the test of time is invalid, because its defined in nebulous terms to the point where current evolutionary theory no longer represents Darwin evolution. Darwin expected that future research would clearly show a gradual change in the fossil record over long periods of time. Instead, the fossil record shows complex life developing suddenly over and over again. In fact, evolutionsists revised the ideads of evolution with names like punctuated equilibrium, thereby changing their theories of evolution but pretending that nothing has changed.
Scientists still can not show how positive mutations can develop in one species to create a new species. Evolutionists unscientifically just assume that it happens. (I must happen, since we have no other scientific explanation is the evolutionsists creed).
Intelligent design is just a way of saying Creation without naming any specific religion and pretending to be scientific. I.D. Fans site arguments that since complex machines like the space shuttle can not self assemble, just like complex life can not spontaenous generate. Another argument is even if you had a million monkeys typing randomly that eventually they might create something readable, but it would not matter because the monkeys can’t read and therefore it would not mean anything. Likewise, even if chemicals combined to form the basic building blocks of life, without an intelligent designer to guide it into something viable all you have is garbage. But all these arguments are aimed at discrediting evolution and don’t prove Intelligent design.
Both sides of the fence on the issue try to shoot holes in each other, since they can’t prove their own theory scientifically. In fact both sides look at the same evidence and try to manipulate it to support their own views.
But the God used evolution theory does not work, because Evolution is a purely naturalistic theory with no room for any supernatural explanations. Where Intelligent Design theory does not need evolution. This is just an attempt to compromise on the issue without having to put any real thought into the arguments.
Personally, I think they both should be taught in school because they are the two most popular beliefs for our existence and neither one is any more valid then the other. I. D. allows for a creator without mentioning any specific religion.
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1187667207;}i:6;a:10:{s:5:"title";s:16:"By: Stijn Hommes";s:4:"link";s:88:"http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/08/14/darwin-or-design/comment-page-1/#comment-53193";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:12:"Stijn Hommes";}s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:04:16 +0000";s:4:"guid";s:73:"http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/08/14/darwin-or-design/#comment-53193";s:11:"description";s:123:"Sides... Have you also talked to people who believe both views can be equally true? Why can't god have created evolution...";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:145:"Sides… Have you also talked to people who believe both views can be equally true? Why can’t god have created evolution…
";}s:7:"summary";s:123:"Sides... Have you also talked to people who believe both views can be equally true? Why can't god have created evolution...";s:12:"atom_content";s:145:"Sides… Have you also talked to people who believe both views can be equally true? Why can’t god have created evolution…
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1187168656;}i:7;a:10:{s:5:"title";s:14:"By: Zev Siegel";s:4:"link";s:88:"http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/08/14/darwin-or-design/comment-page-1/#comment-53133";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:10:"Zev Siegel";}s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:59:31 +0000";s:4:"guid";s:73:"http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/08/14/darwin-or-design/#comment-53133";s:11:"description";s:149:"Ever heard of Dr Gerald Shroeder? He had an interesting take on this topic. Try Googling him and the book "Genesis and the Big Bang." Zev Siegel";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:175:"Ever heard of Dr Gerald Shroeder? He had an interesting take on this topic. Try Googling him and the book “Genesis and the Big Bang.”
Zev Siegel
";}s:7:"summary";s:149:"Ever heard of Dr Gerald Shroeder? He had an interesting take on this topic. Try Googling him and the book "Genesis and the Big Bang." Zev Siegel";s:12:"atom_content";s:175:"Ever heard of Dr Gerald Shroeder? He had an interesting take on this topic. Try Googling him and the book “Genesis and the Big Bang.”
Zev Siegel
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1187146771;}}s:7:"channel";a:7:{s:5:"title";s:29:"Comments on: Darwin or Design";s:4:"link";s:59:"http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/08/14/darwin-or-design/";s:11:"description";s:37:"News from the Staff of Podiobooks.com";s:13:"lastbuilddate";s:31:"Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:55:34 +0000";s:2:"sy";a:2:{s:12:"updateperiod";s:6:"hourly";s:15:"updatefrequency";s:1:"1";}s:9:"generator";s:27:"http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3";s:7:"tagline";s:37:"News from the Staff of Podiobooks.com";}s:9:"textinput";a:0:{}s:5:"image";a:0:{}s:9:"feed_type";s:3:"RSS";s:12:"feed_version";s:3:"2.0";s:8:"encoding";s:10:"ISO-8859-1";s:16:"_source_encoding";s:0:"";s:5:"ERROR";s:0:"";s:7:"WARNING";s:0:"";s:19:"_CONTENT_CONSTRUCTS";a:6:{i:0;s:7:"content";i:1;s:7:"summary";i:2;s:4:"info";i:3;s:5:"title";i:4;s:7:"tagline";i:5;s:9:"copyright";}s:16:"_KNOWN_ENCODINGS";a:3:{i:0;s:5:"UTF-8";i:1;s:8:"US-ASCII";i:2;s:10:"ISO-8859-1";}s:5:"stack";a:0:{}s:9:"inchannel";b:0;s:6:"initem";b:0;s:9:"incontent";b:0;s:11:"intextinput";b:0;s:7:"inimage";b:0;s:17:"current_namespace";b:0;s:4:"etag";s:36:""ba523714ca68aad46ef412207462c1e9" ";s:13:"last_modified";s:31:"Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:55:34 GMT ";}