Try these.

http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/

http://www.pandasthumb.org/

http://aclupa.blogspot.com/

Just about all the information you could want on the evolution/creationism/intelligent design fiasco.

As for Kansas, the Kansas Board of Education by a 6-4 vote, chose to redefine science so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.

Interestingly enough, ID has been justified thusly:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection—how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

Of course it’s just another way to say humans were specially planned and are uniquely relevant: God did it and he did it all for us.

Dover citizens chose an entirely new school board by replacing all eight Intelligent Design proponents with Dover Cares Campaign contenders. It was a clean sweep. However, winners received an average of 51% of the vote, the losers 49%, so the issue was dangerously close to being decided differently.

It should be noted that the incoming board members from the Dover CARES campaign have a platform plank saying that “intelligent design� will be taught in Dover public schools. However, the venue of such instruction will not be the science classrooms, where it was out-of-place, but rather an elective course on comparative religion, where it fits perfectly.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/apparent_end_of.html

I suppose the big picture is bleak.

On the one hand, you have a stunningly large percentage of the population that believes in a more or less literal interpretation of Genesis and religious fundamentalists trying and succeeding to wreck science education where it contradicts their accepted dogma.

Then you have an administration that more or less overtly meddles with the free pursuit of science, depending on whether scientific results are ideologically correct or not.

I will leave it as an exercise to the reader what the likely longterm results will be…

try this blog too:

http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com

The one with the school board sweep was Dover, PA, I think. Rep’s were the only ones to vote in favor of ID (although there were a few that voted against it), and it came back to bite them in the ass.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with elwed that the prospects are bleak.  True, ID suffered a setback in Dover, but its backers are not going to take that sitting down.  Unfortunately, the inherent absurdity of ID posing as “science” is not apparent to most Americans (here in Europe the issue basically does not exist- yet).

Why is this?  My hypotheses:
a) evolution is harder to understand (even Darwin said it was “a real stretcher") than “some very intelligent being designed the complicated stuff”.
b) ID fits more comfortably with religion (for most Americans) than evolution.
c) Americans are ahead of everyone else in the world in relying on celebrities to tell them what to think (don’t worry, the rest of the world is catching up!), and ID has very good PR.

For instance, the Discovery Institute has been able to convince many people that the flapdoodle about ID is a controversy among scientists, when in reality there is no scientific controversy.  But to understand that, you need to go deeper into it than a ten-second sound bite from a newscaster who probably doesn’t understand the issue at all, and who can be bothered nowadays?

A depressing example of this was the little blogspat last week or so between Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, and PZ Meyers, the crusading biologist of Pharyngula (you will have to scroll down a bit to find the posts and counterposts, but wade in at your own risk- there are well over a thousand comments).  Adams basically repeated a bunch of creationist canards (without explicitly endorsing them), and said he didn’t know whom to trust in the debate between (as he put it) “darwinists and ID”.  When PZ jumped on him (supported by his laser-armed death squid minions), and obliged with info, Adams replied that none of the sources were credible, because they all made money and/or careers from peddling their opinions.

This was annoying enough, coming from someone who probably wields a fair amount of influence in the ideosphere.  But the truly appalling part was the number of comments from dismally uninformed readers, who were obviously yearning for some authority or celebrity to tell them what to think, and not interested at all in checking out the many sources (on both sides of the issue) and sorting it out for themselves.  Grrr.

Then you have an administration that more or less overtly meddles with the free pursuit of science, depending on whether scientific results are ideologically correct or not.

Then Intelligent Design is basically Intelligent Philosophy and has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

“Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods” - Dictionary.com

Human nature is such that we will always search for cause and reason but we do ourselves disservice by accepting easy answers. As the human knowledge base grows, we become more aware that if organisms are anything remotely akin to being intelligently designed, they are intelligently (in order to survive and reproduce) designing themselves.

Zilch: It doesn’t require a towering intellect to understand the principles behind evolution. The way I see it, faith trumps fact for most Americans, which isn’t a cheerful thought. For that matter, it remains to be shown that faith is indeed the virtue it’s made out to be.

Brock: ID hardly qualifies as a topic of philosophical discourse - it’s an answer begging the question and not a very intersting one at that. As somebody on Slate (I believe) put it: Intelligently designed organisms are intelligently designed by an intelligent designer. That’s pretty much all there is to ID…

I’m a college student in KS so I’ve gotten a front row seat here. Here’s an outline.

1999-
School board decides to downplay evolution and subject it to heavy critisism.

2000-
Conservatives lose majority on school board. Evolution restored to rightful status.

2005-
KS school board once again decides its time to critisize evolution. Begin talking of new standards. National Academy of Sciences and one other group deny KS the right to use their preprepared standards. Thus school board has to rewrite standards from scratch.

New standards come up for vote in November but have not yet been written. Regardless, they’re approved.

KS approves a new director (Bob Corkins) for the school system that has absolutely no experience in teaching or organizational skills. Pushes ID and attempts to strong arm in a “voucher system” that would allow parents that didn’t want their kids going to public school to recieve funding to send them elsewhere.

The university of Kansas prepares a class on Intelligent Design teaching it in the religion department as mythology. Professor teaching the class sends an Email to the KU atheist group (SOMA) saying this will be a “slap in their big fat faces”. A spy in the discussion group forwards it to fundies and news outlets across the state demonstrating how Christians are being “persectued”.

2006-
4 of the 5 school board members that voted to revise the standards come up for reelection. Several candidates have stept up to oppose them (majorily from the republican moderate side) and it looks to be a repeat of the 2000 reversal and similar to the sweep of Dover’s school board.

Professor teaching the class sends an Email to the KU atheist group (SOMA) saying this will be a “slap in their big fat facesâ€?. A spy in the discussion group forwards…

This is part of the problem. The people in the position to explain evolution in an effective and persuasive manner act like arrogant asses when it comes to those that believe in God.  This teacher is prime example number 1.

zilch, I like PZ Meyers.  I have no doubt that when it comes to the science he is dead on right.  Have even turned to him to explain to me some material I ran across and didn’t understand.  The man was very generous, and was kind enough to respond.  However, his website preaches to the folks that want to mock the masses. If persuasion and education are the goal of the website, it misses the mark badly.  Mocking somebody who is ignorant only serves to ensure that the person now has a personal motive to ensconce themselves in their ignorance.

Consiquliere, I’d agree that people acting like arrogant asses don’t help the situation. However, the email in which his comment was made was a private communication that was only intended to reach the people int he SOMA group.

The big difference here is that it was private, unlike the Christians who openly mock anyone disagreeing with them making up terms such as “evilutionists”.

Consi,

did you succumb to the rationalistic fallacy? If so, I’ll put you on notice that you just invaded moonbat turf. Watch out or we’ll fling guano…

The principles behind evolution can be understood by people with a less than towering intellect, which leads me to suspect that either the American population is plain stupid or there is another reason for the controversy about evolution in this country.

Personally, I doubt that any amount of explaining, small words, cute graphs, or whatnot will convince creationists, who seem invariably willfully ignorant.

For what it’s worth, I disagree with the professor. Even if your motives are transparent, it’s not prudent to voice them where they may be overheard. He should have done the course and kept his cards close to his chest; a closed mouth gathers no foot, eh.

Regarding PZ Myers, it is up to him to explain what objectives he pursues with his site.

The way I see it, it’s not a question of piercing the veil of ignorance, but two firmly entrenched camps facing off with no possibility of either side yielding an inch - a majority of people that reject evolution because it contradicts religious dogma and/or questions that Homo Sapiens Sapiens is the crown of creation on one side, and those that can reconcile with their religious beliefs, if any, and to whom the science simply makes sense.

What you have looks like trench warfare to me; instead of HE and incendiary shells each side lobbs more or less carefully crafted mockery at the other.

Quite frankly, what’s your estimate of the percentage of creationists that are sincerely open to abandoning their position when confronted with Evolution 101 course work?

Hi All,

Two big thank you’s to sandyw1952 and Matt for the links - I’ll cut my way through those soon.

Another tip of the hat and a thank you to Brock for comments and a summary of the recent arguments being used by the Kansas School board - That really helped me catch up and understand the meat of the debate from the Creationists perspective.

Thank you to elwedriddsche (Wow, that’s quite a name!) for comments on the issue although I think that you might be being a little pessimistic - I don’t think that it is the majority of Christians that are fans of this ID stuff.

Pope John Paul did recognize Darwinian Evolution and the “Big Bang” theory and accept both as fact conceding that the stories of “Genesis” are metaphoric fables representing the spiritual occurances within the physical truth of the “Big Bang”.

Most Churches officially reject the strict literalist interpretations of the bible and the offshoots that have given rise to the ID movement and prefer to leave the science class well alone and instead simply add the more unassuming stance that God triggered the big bang and Darwinian Evolution. 

I Don’t think it’s quite as bleak as some might believe although it is singularly depressing that we are in 2005 and yet still there is not a universal consistent agreement in the 1st world to accept science.

Thank you to arc_legion for clearing up the issue of the school board sweep - thanks for you clear, concise summary of that issue.

Thank you to Zilch too - it’s sad that Scott Adams is misled by Creationists, I’ve always been such a Dilbert fan being a software engineer myself. Thanks for your comments, Zilch.

Thank you to VoijaRisa for your summary of the timeline of events in the evolution Vs ID debate in Kansas.

Finally, thankyou to Consigliere for comments. There is an old saying you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, If only the evolutionists were a little more humble sometimes and realized that a little kindness and understanding will win over sarcasm, mockery and arrogance every time when you are trying to get people to accept your side of an argument maybe this wouldnt be happening.

I personally believe that many scientists are arrogant, impatient and unkind even to people like myself, a lifelong atheist, supporter of scientific causes and arguments, and someone who has a scientific degree under his belt too.

Many seem to think they are too good to stoop down and explain to someone they consider a “lesser mind” to give them the time of day needed to give people enough of an understanding of evolution that one can believe in it’s concept.

This is a really bad thing for the scientific community. 

Thank you all for your comments.

Regards,

Deoxy.

Okay, here’s the deal. I’m a born again Christian, and I happen to believe the Biblical version of creation. “Why,” you may ask? Because the Bible claims that this is the true story.

Now, if it can be shown that this account is not true, then one has no choice but to discount the authority of the Bible as unreliable. It would then be difficult to believe ANY of it.

The thing is, I’m not threatened by scoffers who claim that the biblical account isn’t true. After all, biblical salvation is a matter of FAITH. People disbelieved in Christ’s own lifetime, EVEN THOUGH many of them saw miracles that he performed.

At any rate, most evolutionist that I’ve talked with ultimately admit that if it could be shown to them that the biblical account of creation were in fact true, they still wouldn’t be interested in a religious faith.

The one thing that consistently bothers me about evolutionists is the pompous condescension with which they regard those of faith. And the ironic part of it is the fact that the theory of evolution is every bit as much a decision of faith as is ID.

Here’s the thing, species evolving within their own species is NOT the argument. Where evolution completely breaks down is in trying to prove that there has been evolution from lower life forms to higher life forms. This specious argument is completely unsupported in the fossil record. But I don’t even have to enter into an argument like this, since there real issue isn’t even evolutiion, its the origin of species. Science is completely bankrupt on this element.

The desparate hope that water can be found on Mars, with the idea that some how amino acids arrived from somewhere else in the solar system is absurd. Whom of us didn’t see the space shuttle explode a couple of years ago upon reentry? Granted, there were highly combustible rocket fuels involved, but anyone who is old enough to remember the Apollo flights, (as I am,) remembers how hot the unpowered lunar module became upon reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere. I don’t have to be a scientist to be able to know that it would be very difficult for amino acids to survive those temperatures.

And not only that, but these amino acids have to find their way into the cosmic pool of sludge and swim around and find each other in order to attach themselves in just the proper order billions of times in order to magically turn into DNA.

Oh yeah, that’s right, we’re supposed to add the element of time to the mix, and that solves everything, right? But, I guess I didn’t realize those amino acids could survive the millions of years it takes for this miracle to happen. Stooopud me!

Hey, I almost forgot that pesky third law of thermodynamics. Crap, that blows everything, the fact that everything in the known universe DEVOLVES into a random state of chaos, and for evolution to work completely violates that principle.

And the scientific community accuses Christians of having faith? I’d like to see the Vegas oddsmakers calculate the odds of a “Big Bang,” or whatever other current theories exist on the origin of species.

Incidentally, I forgot to include this in my previous diatribe, but as a conservative Christian, I DO NOT expect nor do I want the public schools teaching my kids about creationism. That’s my job as a parent.

I do think, though, that science ought to be honest enough to admit that the current crop of theories about the origin of species are just that— theories.

FabRog: “Why,� you may ask? Because the Bible claims that this is the true story.

I’ve read some Greek mythology.  Does that mean Mt Olympus is real, and the Greek gods are just as real as yours?

Now, if it can be shown that this account is not true

We’re not the ones making that claim.  The burden of proof lies with you. 

I do think, though, that science ought to be honest enough to admit that the current crop of theories about the origin of species are just that— theories.

You apparantly don’t understand what a scientific theory is.  And they DO admit theories are theories - why do you think they are called theories?  They are constantly being tested, but you won’t hear much about it unless something contradictory comes up and can be proven as such.

Deoxy: to give people enough of an understanding of evolution that one can believe in it’s concept.

Oh, I gotta subscribe to this thread.

Hey Ragman:

“I’ve read some Greek mythology.  Does that mean Mt Olympus is real, and the Greek gods are just as real as yours? “

I’m not an expert on Greek mythology, but that’s not the point. My argument is based on the fact that the Bible CLAIMS to not only be a canon that shows a way for humankind to be reconciled to God, it also purports to be a historical record of the origin of species. Not only is the claim made, but it is backed up by the actual historical record.

This is not to say that Greek mythology, and for that matter other world religions don’t make the same claim. It’s just that I happen to believe the Judeo Christian record, for a variety of reasons that are beyond the scope of this discussion. I can just say the arguments are quite compelling.
====================================

“Now, if it can be shown that this account is not true…
We’re not the ones making that claim.  The burden of proof lies with you.”

Perhaps there is some truth to this statement, however, for the scientific explanations of origin to be true requires that ID or creationism must be vanquished. They cannot both be true in their current form, which, again, requires that science at least to handle the basic arguments from the other side. 
====================================

“I do think, though, that science ought to be honest enough to admit that the current crop of theories about the origin of species are just that— theories.

You apparantly don’t understand what a scientific theory is.  And they DO admit theories are theories - why do you think they are called theories?  They are constantly being tested, but you won’t hear much about it unless something contradictory comes up and can be proven as such.”

No, I DO precisely understand scientific theory. The trouble is that science today arrogantly posits ALL scientific theory as fact, in other words seeking to employ a “blanket stamp of approval,” and that any thing based on faith to be rejected out of hand. Unfortunately, this violates the principle of scientific theory or the scientific method. In the absence of empirical evidence for these so-called scientific theories, the scientific community should at least CONSIDER faith-based assertions, at which and until they can be discounted. My point is that the scientific community is not able to RULE OUT creationist theories with anything other that outright dismissal because they sound preposterous. Well, this is in direct contradiction to how science approaches evolution or big bang, by giving the benefit of the doubt. Consider this: not much more than a century ago, the thought that a 747 jet airliner would be able to get off the ground would probably have been met with derision by the scientific community as there was no empirical evidence that this could happen, other than the fact that birds could fly. However, now with the study of physics and aerodynamics and other applied sciences, we don’t even question the the principle of flight. Again, science should be honest enough to admit that what we know today makes creationism seem like a longshot, however this is not to say that its not true.
====================================

“Deoxy: to give people enough of an understanding of evolution that one can believe in it’s concept.
Understand, not believe.  For a number of people, if you can’t put it in a simpler term than “God did itâ€?, they can’t/won’t understand it.”

While the “God said it, I believe it” argument may seem intellectually bankrupt to you, for many Christians, this is enough. The Bible says that the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God, and vice versa, the wisdom of God is foolishness to the world. Further, the Bible says that when one comes to Christ, a veil is removed from their eyes and they can then understand the things of faith, that before didn’t make sense. Again, this is beyond the scope of this discussion group, but I can personally attest to this mysterious understanding that comes when one comes to Christ. I was an athiest and a MAJOR skeptic prior to really investigating the claims of Christ. And at the time I came to faith I did NOT even believe many of the claims of Scripture.

Anyway, I’ve gone farther than I should, but you get the point, I’m sure.

Incidentally, I forgot to include this in my previous diatribe, but as a conservative Christian, I DO NOT expect nor do I want the public schools teaching my kids about creationism. That’s my job as a parent.

If that’s true, FabulousRog, you should agree with us that ID has no place in public school science classes, and that’s the topic of this thread, and the main concern of us naturals (to use PZ Meyers’ term, embracing both atheists and believers who accept natural explanations for the findings of science).  What you believe, and teach your kids, is another topic. 
If you doubt the identification of ID with creationism, read the Wedge Document, an outline for the use of ID as a “wedge” to introduce fundamentalist Christian thought into public school curricula.

If you want a debate about your understanding of evolution, you can have that here too, but I frankly don’t have time to point out all your misconceptions.  I’ll just settle for one:  you say

Hey, I almost forgot that pesky third law of thermodynamics. Crap, that blows everything, the fact that everything in the known universe DEVOLVES into a random state of chaos, and for evolution to work completely violates that principle.

Hint: do a modicum of research before you quote fundy canards about physics.  One: the Third Law of Thermodynamics states that “if all the thermal motion of molecules (kinetic energy) could be removed, a state called absolute zero would occur. Absolute zero results in a temperature of 0 Kelvin or -273.15° Celsius”.  I don’t believe this is what you mean.

More likely, you are referring to the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.” For “entropy” we can read (for the purposes of this discussion) “disorder”.  This means that the total amount of order in the Universe can only decrease with time.  No scientist disagrees with this.

Fundamentalists such as yourself interpret this, over and over and over and over and over, to mean that biogenesis and evolution cannot occur, because they represent (truly enough) increases in order.  But what fundamentalists strangely, or conveniently enough, overlook, is the qualification ”isolated” in the Second Law.  The Universe as a whole is indeed an isolated system by definition, and as a whole, its entropy must increase.  But the Earth, and bacteria, and redwoods, and Pat Robertson, are not isolated systems.  They are open systems, which can utilize energy (ultimately from the Sun) to locally increase information, by increasing entropy elsewhere.  Why creationists continue to misunderstand this is a riddle.

Mocking somebody who is ignorant only serves to ensure that the person now has a personal motive to ensconce themselves in their ignorance.

Well, Consi, everyone has their own style and audience, and ultimately all you can say is “suum cuique”.  Sure, PZ is pretty sarcastic, and probably turns off some people.  But I think there’s a time and a place for all approaches, from the gentlest persuasion to the harshest mocking.  I look at PZ’s cynicism as a foil to the odious “wedge strategy” of the IDers, the attempt to insert their parochial brand of fundamentalist belief into American public schools.  These people will not be persuaded by soft words, and richly deserve the skewering they get at Pharyngula.

And we mustn’t forget that Professor Meyers is a fallible human, much like some others I could mention, and has only so much patience dealing with nonsense before he gets angry, and summons his dread laser-armed death squids.  At least he’s funny, unlike, say, William Dembski or Scott Adams.

Ultimately, who can say which approach is more persuasive, and for whom?  It is a legitimate question, Consi, and Deoxy may be generally right in saying that “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”.  But there’s a place for vinegar too.

Speaking of flies- I feel one should either do some research before regurgitating nonsense, or heed the Mexican aphorism: “en boca cerrada no entran moscas” ("no flies enter a closed mouth").  That is, unless it’s entertaining (to leave the last word to Mose Allison- not referring to you, Consi):

If you must keep talking, please try to make it rhyme
Because your mind is on vacation, and your mouth is working overtime

FabulousRog:

Okay, here’s the deal. I’m a born again Christian, and I happen to believe the Biblical version of creation. “Why,� you may ask? Because the Bible claims that this is the true story.

Now, if it can be shown that this account is not true, then one has no choice but to discount the authority of the Bible as unreliable. It would then be difficult to believe ANY of it.

And there you have it. You chose to selectively reject science, because it contradicts religious dogma. Short of deconverting you from Christianity, I doubt that any amount of debate about evolution will sway you.

There is little point in responding to the rest of your diatribe (your words). You don’t really present arguments against evolution, but rationalizations designed to buttress the question you beg. I.e., god exists.

Even though you make claims to the contrary, you do not appear to understand the nature of the scientific method, scientific inquiry, and the meaning of a scientific theory. If you would, we wouldn’t be treated to statements like

The trouble is that science today arrogantly posits ALL scientific theory as fact

Are you aware that you have it backwards? It is religious dogma that by definition posits fact. You would also spare us the demand to inject faith into science - it’s special pleading and the argument from ignorance…

Just to pick a few more random comments:

The one thing that consistently bothers me about evolutionists is the pompous condescension with which they regard those of faith.

Pity and sorrow is more like it. Not that there aren’t fundamentalists that richly deserve all the condescension and scorn that I can muster.

My point is that the scientific community is not able to RULE OUT creationist theories with anything other that outright dismissal because they sound preposterous.

The scientific community summarily rejects creationist claims because they do not qualify as scientific theories. They contribute nothing beyond goddidit and expose a mindboggling hypocripsy by accepting science where it doesn’t get in the way of the literal interpretation of scripture.

While the “God said it, I believe it� argument may seem intellectually bankrupt to you, for many Christians, this is enough.

It’s not much of an argument, as opposed to simple contradiction. And yes, it is intellectually bankrupt.

Anyway, I’ve gone farther than I should, but you get the point, I’m sure.

Yes, we do.

Deoxy:

Thank you to elwedriddsche (Wow, that’s quite a name!) for comments on the issue although I think that you might be being a little pessimistic - I don’t think that it is the majority of Christians that are fans of this ID stuff.

In Europe, it’s a non-issue except for the rare individual that overdosed on religion. In the U.S., a recent study showed that more than half of the population are creationists (or at least reject evolution).

Whether I’m pessimistic or not is open to debate. I have long had the impression that Americans have grown indifferent to the pursuit of science, but in recent years I increasingly observe a climate of outright anti-intellectualism. Simply put, rational thought leads away from god, atheists lack the proper patriotic spirit, therefore intellectuals are bad citizens.

The problem isn’t what point of view the majority subscribes to, but what the religious extremist fringe can get away with. I don’t believe that complacency is called for…

Zilch, you rock.  Your comments are full of “keepers”.

Deoxy: “I personally believe that many scientists are arrogant, impatient and unkind “(~even though I am on their side)

Not limited to scientists.  Many mechanics, evangelists, dentists, economists, mothers, and candlestick makers are the same way.  Cussedness is common.  That is why a thick skin is an asset to discourse.

FabulousRog: “The one thing that consistently bothers me about evolutionists is the pompous condescension with which they regard those of faith. And the ironic part of it is the fact that the theory of evolution is every bit as much a decision of faith as is ID.”

Once again, FR, find out what the difference is between an hypothesis and a theory.  Then ask yourself, how patient would you be with the 500th person to come along and say; “It’s just a theory!  So there!” After a while you just get tired of explaining.

Creationists often show up here and spout the same tired old crap, and then - invariably - resort to whining that we’re impatient with them.  Suppose we came onto a Christian blog and said; “Well, what about when St. Paul brought the 12 Commandments down from Mount Ararrat, huh?!  That disproves YOUR understanding of the gospel!” You might patiently explain to the first ten or so, that we had a number of Bible stories all mixed up. 

Then suppose hundreds of us did that, one after another, using the SAME tired misunderstandings of Christianity, for years on end?  After a while, you’d find some nice, Christian way to say; “Get lost, dipshit.”

I’m so glad you guys got to FabulousRog’s comments before I did or I’d likely be demonstrating that PZ Myers isn’t the only condescending and sarcastic blogger on the net.

There’s not much I can add other than he really needs to get a basic grasp of science and the scientific method, let alone Evolutionary theory, before it’s even worth trying to address anything he said. I’ll just add his name to my list of nut case Christians and keep moving along.

Gosh, thanks for the compliment, DoF.  You rock too.
But didn’t St. Paul actually bring the 12 Golden Hemorrhoids for the Philistines to put in the Ark of the Covenant?
And Deoxy- “elwedriddsche” is cognate with “eldritch”.  Our elwed is indeed a bit otherworldly…