Columns

Intelligent design has no place in Texas classrooms


The Family Tree by Pedro Cervantes

The Family Tree by Pedro Cervantes

The socially conservative base of the Republican party has never been fond of secular education, and Republican presidential candidates are once again courting their socially conservative base by attacking evolution.

This was seen last week at a New Hampshire speaking event when Gov. Rick Perry responded to a child’s question about evolution with a somewhat embarrassing answer.

“It’s a theory that’s out there,” Perry said. “It’s got some gaps in it.”

Unfortunately, Perry is not the only politician making such statements. During the Republican Leadership Conference this June, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) reiterated her support for intelligent design.

“What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide,” she said.

“I think it’s a good idea for a government not to come down on one side of a scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides.”

The problem is, there is not reasonable doubt on both sides. The scientific community is overwhelmingly supportive of the theory of evolution. The handful of objecting scientists are clearly of the mad variety.

The gaps that Perry referred to in his answer are the most common criticisms of evolution — alleged gaps in the fossil record. Since so few organisms are likely to leave fossils, much less fully intact ones, some transitional forms have not yet been discovered. Scientists do not expect that fossils will be found of all organisms that have lived on Earth. Evolution is observable in traits over generations and in alleles. There are no gaps in this so-called theory. Evolution is a fact.

Some believe that evolution was a deity’s instrument in creation, but there is no observable scientific evidence that this is the case. Candidates speak of reasonable doubt on both sides, when in actuality there is overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution, and no scientific evidence at all to support divine intervention.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution is fairly explicit about the establishment of a state religion. Thomas Jefferson elaborated on this in a letter written to the Danbury Baptist association in 1802.

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State,” Jefferson wrote.

How may a public institution preferentially treat any specific creation narrative over proven observable science in our schools? To do so would be establishing a national religion.

Asking our schools to teach a specific narrative on our origins would require that all origin narratives be taught. Why would we take class time for such a purpose when US students rank below average in math and science globally?

There are many religious theories about the origins of our planet and the human species. None are backed by scientific evidence. Faith is a deeply personal matter.

If one wishes to teach their child Judeo-Christian creationism, intelligent design, or that we all live on the back of a giant turtle, they are welcome to do so in their home. One does not, however, have the right to demand that their neighbor’s child be taught the same.

To insist that one’s own unverified beliefs are right for everyone is, by definition, bigoted. To maintain that evolution is unproven is willful ignorance in the face of fact.

Bachmann and Perry can hold their breath until the sky turns orange — but that will not make it true.

We do our children a great disservice by teaching them that 2 + 2 doesn’t have to equal 4 if someone yells loud enough that it doesn’t. If our next generation is going to compete globally, we must heed the words of the defense attorney in the infamous Scope’s Monkey Trial.

“We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States,” Clarence Darrow said.

Darrow’s words are as true today as they were in 1925.

Tags: , ,


  • Steven Christopher

    There is one glaring reason for this whole problem which should be quite obvious: the state is charged with educating everyone’s children.

    If one does not “have the right to demand that their neighbor’s child be taught” a particular theory, then why does one have the right to demand that their neighbor pay for public schools that they do not approve of?

  • Darwin

    Evolution looks good right up to the primordial soup argument….this is the gap I have a problem with & I'm not religious.

    • Crabbieappleton

      Abiogenesis, what you're talking about with the "primordial soup," is a different field than evolution. Evolution is really just an explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, not an explanation of how it originated. It's a bit like doubting chemistry because chemists can't explain how the big bang happened. Or doubting physics because we don't know why gravity works.

    • Mark

      Yeah, and it was real hard to think of the Earth going around the Sun, until we figured out "Hey, it must work that way." It took 150 years for Newton to "prove" that Copernicus was correct. We are only 152 years past Darwin, and this problem is a LOT more complex.

      I'm convinced that we are on the right track.

    • Philip

      What you are talking about is Abiogenesis, not Evolution. Abiogenesis is about how life started, Evolution is about how it changes. They are separate.

    • Sam77

      There are tons of possible ways that life could have got started. They may be speculative, but only because we should not be able to expect to find the fossils (fossilization works on whole organisms, not replicating molecules) and because there as so man different possible ways hypothesized. All you need is a molecule that replicates itself like RNA. RNA could also have assisted as a catalyst for other replications without being directly involved. But this is just one of many ways hypothesized and it could have got started in one of many different environments that we have not been able to get too (the depth of the ocean or even outer space). There is nothing impossible about it and irreducible complexity completely fails as an argument because you have to be aware of all of the possible variables and different chemical pathways before you can rule out that all of them fail. We haven't a clue (there are just so many) and even if we did know all of the variables and evolutionary routeways, it would probably take a giant super computer to calculate the probabilities of all of the pathways that is way beyond our capacity in order to calculate the probability of life on earth getting started.

      • mamo

        …There is nothing impossible about it and irreducible…

        if you are talking about infinite possibilities, why not consider creation as one of those possibilities?

        • pillowbugg

          if we were to include creation into that catagory, then we would have to include aliens, space debris and the ten thousand other gods that humans have believed in at some point. That just clutter the issue and doesn't explain anything. We deserve better.

  • Shae

    BRAVO! Well said!

  • http://twitter.com/zenduane @zenduane

    Everything evolves. We evolve from children to adults. We evolve in our thinking as we learn more. Seeds evolve into trees and produce fruit. The universe itself is evolving and expanding. How could anyone be so stupid as to think a god would have exempted the human being from this plan?

    • RedBox

      You do not understand that there are numerous definitions of "evolution". Change over time is accepted by all scientists. However, the evolution of biological systems (Neo-Darwinism) from "Zero" if suspect. The program for life is made up of biological information. This information is stored in DNA. Information, as we know, only comes from an intelligent source; go ask any programmer. Neo-Darwinism can not even explain the first organism. You need a blueprint to build because it provides direction and purpose. A blueprint does not generate itself from a primordial soup of random events; or better yet, spilling some Scrabble letters in a churning blender. This is Neo-Darwinism.

  • Thursday

    The primordial soup, whatever you think of it, has nothing at all to do with evolution. Abiogenesis – where the first bits of life came from – are a different matter entirely from evolution, which tells us how life as it currently exists came about from earlier life. So, you don't actually have a problem with evolution at all.

    • Darwin

      I think you are splitting hairs…

      • CRW

        Hypothesis: a claim that is reasonable, but unproven through either experimentation or observation. For example, the exact origins of life have not been proven so any claims now are only hypotheses.

        Theory: a collection of hypotheses that have been proven out through repeated observation, prediction and validation, and/or experimentation. People often criticize evolution as unscientific because speciation of complex organisms has not been demonstrated in the lab. This of course, misrepresents the theory and loses some of the observation foundations of evolution. Think of astronomy. We cannot construct an experiment to prove that the earth rotates around the sun with the other planets, but we can make observations establishing this hypothesis, and confirm it through predictions such as gravitational interplay which should be observable. Some of the gross portions of evolution have been confirmed through predicts that have borne out to be true.

        Removing abiogenesis from evolution is not splitting hairs. Your claim to the contrary is only revealing your ignorance.

  • Rototrav

    It's hard to believe there are people who still want to prevent evolution from being taught in schools. The only sort of religious belief evolution threatens is the most literal, over simplistic, fundamental, unthinking Christianity. Even Jesus would be interested in the biological roots of our humanity.

    • RedBox

      It is hard to believe that you do not know that Christians believe that Jesus is the creator of all things. See Col. 1:15,16.
      Jesus is interested in the biological roots of us because he created it. The only thing He asks of you is to "Believe" in Him. John 6:29.

      • Dune Scholar

        @Rototrav – not so hard to believe now, eh? (referring to Redbox's reply) LOL

  • island

    As an independent and an atheist it is my unbiased observation that the unscientific willful ignorance that the author is guilty of is to automatically equates intelligent design to creationism, when in fact this is not necessarily true. More politics in the name of science.

    What if the ID is a more advanced civilization that has learned to master the physics of the forces?… for example.

    From a scientific standpoint only, it does not matter whether or not the creationist believes that it is god, as long as there is some realistically plausible evidence in support of the idea that we are not here by accident. This question is debated, even though it may not even be debatable, as there are numerous reputable atheist physicists who will offer evidence for a "life principle", for example. The bottom line is that this issue is purely political, no matter how loudly that left winged ideologues scream that they are the ones doing science.

    "I must say, as things stand now, we will be hardpressed to answer the IDists without any answer to nature's fine-tunings… (because) the appearance of design is undeniable"… (and a real scientist doesn't willfully ignore the guy that's standing over the dead body with a smoking gun in his hand, just because you have another idea about whodunit).
    –Strong Atheist physicist, and "father of string theory"… Leonard Susskind

    Emile Brooks babbles her political belief system:
    "Some believe that evolution was a deity’s instrument in creation, but there is no observable scientific evidence that this is the case."

    Quit lying for Copernicus.

  • island

    As an independent and an atheist it is my unbiased observation that the unscientific willful ignorance that the author is guilty of is to automatically equates intelligent design to creationism, when in fact this is not necessarily true. More politics in the name of science.

    What if the ID is a more advanced civilization that has learned to master the physics of the forces?… for example.

    From a scientific standpoint only, it does not matter whether or not the creationist believes that it is god, as long as there is some realistically plausible evidence in support of the idea that we are not here by accident. This question is debated, even though it may not even be debatable, as there are numerous reputable atheist physicists who will offer evidence for a "life principle", for example. The bottom line is that this issue is purely political, no matter how loudly that left winged ideologues scream that they are the ones doing science.

    "I must say, as things stand now, we will be hardpressed to answer the IDists without any answer to nature's fine-tunings… (because) the appearance of design is undeniable"… (and a real scientist doesn't willfully ignore the guy that's standing over the dead body with a smoking gun in his hand, just because you have another idea about whodunit).
    –Strong Atheist physicist, and "father of string theory"… Leonard Susskind

    Emile Brooks babbles her political belief system:
    "Some believe that evolution was a deity’s instrument in creation, but there is no observable scientific evidence that this is the case."

    Quit lying for Copernicus.

  • DH harmon

    Just because there are gaps and we do not know everything, that does not mean "god did it"

  • DH harmon

    Every organism is a "transitional" one.

  • RickK

    Proponents say: "Intelligent Design is the scientific search for evidence of design in nature."

    In theory, that may be true. In practice however, ID is an advertising campaign and a tool for fundamentalist Christians who see it as a wedge with which to drive Genesis back into science classes and public policy.

    Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the ID "researchers" are not the actions of scientists seeking actual truth. They do not attempt to convince their scientific peers with weight of evidence. They treat criticism as an attack, as a shunning, rather than as part of the gauntlet that any new scientific idea must run. The ID proponents appeal directly to the public with scientific-sounding books like "Signature in the Cell", using math and terminology that the vast majority of the general public is not equipped to critique.

    And they use lawyers and press releases. The Discovery Institute in Seattle is promoting intelligent design with a media machine that is churning out several press releases every week. Using funding from Young Earth Creationists, the lawyers and politicos who head the Discovery Institute keep the ID "manufactroversy" in business.

    If there are any actual honest ID "scientists", people actually trying to study something scientifically and trying to devise actual falsifiable tests, they are lost in sea of bamboozle and mis-direction that is the heart and soul of the "Intelligent Design" lobby.

    The pseudo-scientific advertising machine of the Discovery Institute most closely resembles the ad campaigns by Big Tobacco in the late 60s. But where Big Tobacco were (by their own admission) marketing doubt in the science that showed smoking causes cancer, the Discovery Institute (by its own admission) markets doubt in the materialist science of evolution.

    These are not the ACTIONS of people of science. They are the actions of people of politics and religious ideology.

    So let's not confuse what Intelligent Design should be with what Intelligent Design is.

  • RickK

    Proponents say: "Intelligent Design is the scientific search for evidence of design in nature."

    In theory, that may be true. In practice however, ID is an advertising campaign and a tool for fundamentalist Christians who see it as a wedge with which to drive Genesis back into science classes and public policy.

    Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the ID "researchers" are not the actions of scientists seeking actual truth. They do not attempt to convince their scientific peers with weight of evidence. They treat criticism as an attack, as a shunning, rather than as part of the gauntlet that any new scientific idea must run. The ID proponents appeal directly to the public with scientific-sounding books like "Signature in the Cell", using math and terminology that the vast majority of the general public is not equipped to critique.

    And they use lawyers and press releases. The Discovery Institute in Seattle is promoting intelligent design with a media machine that is churning out several press releases every week. Using funding from Young Earth Creationists, the lawyers and politicos who head the Discovery Institute keep the ID "manufactroversy" in business.

    If there are any actual honest ID "scientists", people actually trying to study something scientifically and trying to devise actual falsifiable tests, they are lost in sea of bamboozle and mis-direction that is the heart and soul of the "Intelligent Design" lobby.

    The pseudo-scientific advertising machine of the Discovery Institute most closely resembles the ad campaigns by Big Tobacco in the late 60s. But where Big Tobacco were (by their own admission) marketing doubt in the science that showed smoking causes cancer, the Discovery Institute (by its own admission) markets doubt in the materialist science of evolution.

    These are not the ACTIONS of people of science. They are the actions of people of politics and religious ideology.

    So let's not confuse what Intelligent Design should be with what Intelligent Design is.

    • Guest

      Science does not work by assuming Intelligent Design and then looking for evidence. This is the definition of confirmation bias, and is the reason we need science — to remove this bias.

      Also, as for Intelligent Design being science, there are no peer reviewed scientific papers on Intelligent Design that I know of. And I can assure you there are hundreds upon hundreds on evolution…just go to google scholar and dig around

      • Broadback

        You have not looked enough. They exist, but are discriminated against by the Darwin lobby. This is fact. The truth is being kept from you plain and simple.

        • Dune Scholar

          LOL

  • RickK

    Island says: " as long as there is some realistically plausible evidence in support of the idea that we are not here by accident. "

    One species among 9 million others, on a medium sized planet orbiting an average star, one of 300 billion in an average galaxy, one of 100+ billion others – a species that didn't appear for 3+ billion years of other species, now quickly overpopulating and over exploiting this little planet, which itself revolves around a star that will flare up in a billion years, killing everything, in a universe headed for a cold dark future.

    If that's evidence of purpose, I'd hate to see what your idea of accidental looks like.

    Give up the search for an overlord or grand plan. Just go find a partner, make/adopt some babies and love them until it hurts. Take advantage of this life, because it is rare and precious and you're very very lucky to have this shot at it. And it is best when shared. Don't waste one second searching for a cosmic/divine reason – it's simply not there, nor is it necessary.

    • RedBox

      You have the absolute freedom to say exactly what you stated. You can deny God and live your life as you see fit. This is your choice and a God given free will.
      However, you can also choose to acknowledge him purely on faith. You have a soul Rick, it is uniquely yours. There is no other like you. You are not just meat on bones. Your soul cannot be quantified with atoms and molecules. Where does your soul go after the flesh is dead?Not to be vague, but who are you to you?

      • Dune Scholar

        …you forgot to include the operative word: "blind" in front of the word 'faith'… and accepting anything or anyone on blind faith is just stupid. I choose NOT to be stupid…

        …also – free will is what we possess – whether or not someone or something GAVE that to us is pure science-fiction-like speculation… lol

  • Phrog

    Well stated. Science does not overlap with the magisterium of religion and religion should not be taught in a science curriculum. The so called Intelligent Design theory is nothing but creationism, and therefore religion, in disguise. There is no evidence for ID because it is faith based. It fails the major test of being a scientific theory, it is not falsifiable. Religious right politicians seem to have the goal of dominion making the U.S. a conservative Christian theocracy. This is of considerable concern to our rights as outlined in the first amendment. Politicians running for office should be asked questions about science including evolution, global warming. These are not 'gotcha' questions, they are valid queries of a politicians understanding of science, a critically important piece of information the public should know before electing someone to office. Perry's denunciation accusing scientists of making up facts is not just ludicrous, it is a pejorative ad hominem attack on the integrity of our scientists.

  • Phrog

    Well stated. Science does not overlap with the magisterium of religion and religion should not be taught in a science curriculum. The so called Intelligent Design theory is nothing but creationism, and therefore religion, in disguise. There is no evidence for ID because it is faith based. It fails the major test of being a scientific theory, it is not falsifiable. Religious right politicians seem to have the goal of dominion making the U.S. a conservative Christian theocracy. This is of considerable concern to our rights as outlined in the first amendment. Politicians running for office should be asked questions about science including evolution, global warming. These are not 'gotcha' questions, they are valid queries of a politicians understanding of science, a critically important piece of information the public should know before electing someone to office. Perry's denunciation accusing scientists of making up facts is not just ludicrous, it is a pejorative ad hominem attack on the integrity of our scientists.

  • Joe Jensen

    Perry mispoke, probably because he was addressing a child. Texas is one of the few states that actually allow student to learn more Evolution, not less. the students in that state can be presented material explaining but the pros and more importantly the problems with the current theory of evolution. In other words, Texas education is More scientific than the other states.
    The official representatives of the Intelligent Design movement NEVER advocate the teaching of Creationism or Intelligent Design in a science classroom, as is normally reported. All mainstream ID proponents endorse the teaching of MORE evolution, warts and all. This is the science Michelle Bachmann wants on the table. This is what the discovery Institute, official rep of ID in America, has always advocated.
    IT is also the more scientific option.
    Joe Jensen, Canada.

    • Guest

      The flaws in evolution are highly technical and specific — very specific mechanisms in isolated environments. The flaws are not as general as large as Perry would have you believe, and there are no flaws in the predictive power of the general theory. Moreover, there is no controversy within the scientific community about evolution, the only controversy is in politics and between IDers.

      Although they might say they give the pros and cons, this is most likely a charade to misrepresent the science and present it in a strawman type fashion ("Evolution says Humans came from rocks!")

      Finally, the Discovery Institute is known to be a mostly religious institution that does no science. They have "labs" but have no peer reviewed articles in scientific journals or papers to speak of. I went to their site and they listed a few papers, but I actually read the papers and they not about or discussed ID in any form. Its as if they just listed a few random biology papers and assumed you would not read them. They are acedemically dishonest and frauds, who fight in the name of creationism

  • Mac

    The writer of the article needs to get on thing straight. IT IS STILL A THEORY. To claim it as a fact goes more to what they believe and feel. "There are no gaps in this so-called theory. Evolution is a fact." Evolution is a theory and until proven otherwise is still such. It is not fact nor is it the be all end all as the writer wants to put it. There is a reason why in sicence there are very few laws that are "facts". They must be proven beyond any doubt. If the person were not to have used the previously quoted line I would have been more inclined to take them a little more seriously.

    • K-Joy

      Gravity also just a theory. Care to make biased and ignorant claims on that theory as well?

  • Mac

    The writer of the article needs to get on thing straight. IT IS STILL A THEORY. To claim it as a fact goes more to what they believe and feel. "There are no gaps in this so-called theory. Evolution is a fact." Evolution is a theory and until proven otherwise is still such. It is not fact nor is it the be all end all as the writer wants to put it. There is a reason why in sicence there are very few laws that are "facts". They must be proven beyond any doubt. If the person were not to have used the previously quoted line I would have been more inclined to take them a little more seriously.

    • Guest

      Mac needs to get on(e) thing straight: A scientific theory is as close to fact that anyone without a PhD would ever need.

      Gravity is STILL A THEORY. Atomic Theory, ever heard of that? Every verified assumption in science is a theory. A hypothesis is not a scientific theory, hence Creationism and I.D. have no validity in claiming to be an alternative to Evolution.

      There are no 'facts' in science because more information can always become available and then a theory would have to be updated. Einstein updated Newton's previously held assumptions. That's how science works. If it can be proven beyond any doubt, it ceases to be science.

      Complaining about the writer's ignorance with your own is also a pretty good way not to be taken seriously

      • Dune Scholar

        Just for the record – Mac and most of his/her ilk will never get it straight… but their comments make for absolutely awesome comedy! Sometimes I'm laughing so hard I can barely breathe LOL :)

  • 1914

    Quoted from the introduction to the Origin of Species: “I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.”

    A foundation on copious data = a falsifiable conclusion

  • 1914

    ‘Are there some things that we cannot see with our eyes but that we believe exist because there are sound reasons to do so? What about the air we breathe? We may feel it when there is a breeze. We can tell that it fills our lungs, even though we do not see it. Because we see the effects, there is good reason to believe in it, isn’t that so?’ (2) ‘And we cannot see gravity. But when we drop something we see evidence that gravity is at work. Nor do we see odors, but our nose picks them up. We cannot see sound waves, but our ears detect them. So we believe in things we cannot see—provided there is good reason to do so, isn’t that right?’ (3) ‘Well, is there evidence that an invisible God really exists?

  • RedBox

    Much of the problem of this debate is the definition of Evolution. The most common definition of "change over time" is accepted by most if not all. The argument that ID posits is that an unguided and blind process through natural selection cannot not produce the vast amount of life that we see now. THIS IS THE ARGUMENT. Not change over time or differentiation within a species.
    Show me any process other than "evolution", that we know today, that can produce new and specified information, as what we see in DNA, using a random,blind, and unguided process. There is none. From what we know today in our age of information, intelligence begets information. There is no way around this.
    THIS is the controversy. Where did the information come from?
    Neo-Darwinism assures us that all the variety of life comes from random mutations of information in DNA. I ask again, how can you get specified information from this process? Many will jump and say, "natural selection, silly!" Natural selection is blind,unguided and seemingly magical process invoked by Neo Darwinists.
    No student will believe that they can their iPhone/Android device, shake up the information within and expect to get the newest version of iOS or Gingerbread. THIS IS what evolution proposes. IT CAN NOT HAPPEN.

    • BlueSphere

      Evolution doesn't have an end goal. It is random in the fact that each individual will have different mutations, different characteristics. But it is these characteristics that lead to the overall change in time that you speak of.

      If you want to get more detailed, DNA changes with each replication. These are the mutations that scientists talk about. The general Dogma is that DNA makes RNA. RNA make protein and the proteins makes fucntionining cells. If the mutation in the DNA leads to a change in the RNA, the protein will be different and have different functions (most the time it will die, but sometimes there are advantageous changes).

      These mutations come together and add up.

      Using Caps doesn't make your argument any better.

      • RedBox

        Again, it is the same empty argument. You offer nothing to explain the origin of information from a blind, and unguided process. The caps were meant to draw attention to this contention, and again you chose to ignore it. There is no system that we know of that can generate specified information using an blind and unguided process.
        You seriously refute yourself when you admit that "most the time it (organisms) will die, but sometimes there are advantageous changes". Have you thought to consider how minute a probability you put your faith in? The probabilities are out of your favor. Look at E.coli, thousands of generations yet we still have E. coli. Why because there are limits to mutational changes because the information is not there to produce new, functional attributes that will compel us to call it an entirely new organism.

        And even if you do get a new function, natural selection will eliminate it from the population during the next generation because this was a random event resulting in from an improbable and potentially harmful mutation.

        As for an argument, you have not offered a proper response to the problem of information. Specified information only comes from an intelligent source.
        Random and unguided processes are perceived as such:

        Jack dna Jlli
        Wnte up eht hlil
        To ftche a plail of wtera

        Not much intelligence in the above. However, since you are an intelligible agent you are able to decipher the phrase above.

        This is the argument for I.D. Biology is a system that was designed by an intelligent source, that is why we are able to understand it. If were a system of unguided and blind mutations of unknown origins, we would have no way of understanding.

        Does this make my argument better?

        • Dune Scholar

          LOL – since it IS a system of unguided and blind mutations of unknown origins, and we ARE understanding more and more of it as we continue to study and learn over time, I'd say that your argument just went 'kerplunk' (maybe you shouldn't actually try to be a proponent, and leave the arguing to other, more astute, ID fanatics… with friends like you, ID doesn't need enemies LOL) – but you are super-hilarious, so I've got to give you props for that…

  • Pepetango

    Fact: Evolutionism is just a religion. You need faith to accept what is just a hypothesis, with very serious scientific flaws to be considered a "theory." As a religious men, the followers can not see any contradiction the evidence present to the hypothesis and yelled, without any proof, it is a "fact." The reason that faulty theology impede to recognize a Designer, should prompt to look for a better theology, and real science. I can not call science to something that violate the principal postulates that it pretend to represent. By the way, I have a couple of questions: What came first, the egg or the hen… or rooster? The tree or the seed? And please, give an intelligent and scientific evidence of your answers…

  • K-Joy

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/14/tech/ma

    Chicken came first, good game bro. Due to the fact the protein inside and egg shell can only come from a chicken.

    The idea that evolution is a religion is laughable as well.

    Definition: Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values.

    The Scientific theory of evolution meets none of the criteria necessary in the definition. Atheism and Evolution are not religions the same way bald is not a hair color.

Back to Top ↑