DUH-WIN Yeah... he's somone to cherish..... That a book of BS.....Origin of feces is more like it.... Ridiculous.... LOL

DARRTS, you're unreal. Ay least several critics of Darwin and ENS mange to criticize withou being obnoxious.

"The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for life" was the whole title of Charlie's book. People seem to conveniently leave out his racist roots and beliefs. However, in order to believe in Darwinian evolution, you must completely throw out those pesky first two Laws of Thermodynamics. Please do not think that I do not believe in Natural Selection, I do, it is called variation of Kind. But to believe that we evolved from a single celled organisms, well you must have a much greater faith than I. Ask a professor, how did life originate? How come scientist have never found a positive mutation? How come we have never observed one kind of animal changing into a different kind of animal? Dogs have always produced other dogs. Please, lets bring true science and common sense back to all of our school campuses.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

"...Darwin had initially decided to call his book An abstract of an Essay/on the/Origin/of/Species and Varieties/Through natural selection/, but with Murray's persuasion it was eventually changed to the snappier title: On the Origin of Species, with the title page adding by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Here the term "races" is used as an alternative for "varieties" and does not carry the modern connotation of human races—the first use in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and proceeds to a discussion of "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants"...[43]

"Origin of feces" is an album by Type-O Negative. Not a book by Darwin.

Tuxman, et al., you continue to promote falacious, outdated, or inadequate criticisms of evolution by natural selection (ENS). Much has happened (evolved?) in 150 years. ENS never has and never will voilate the Laws of Thermodynamics (briefly, the earth in NOT a closed system). ENS does not discuss the ultimate origns of life itself but subsequent evolution. This sample of questions shows misinterpretation of not only thermodynamics but chemical reaction energetics, speciation, reproduction, and a host of other observations. As for racist roots and beliefs, that is totally false for Darwin himself. Unfortunately others have grossly misinterpreted findings or made false extensions.

Moreover, acceptance of ENS is not a matter of "faith" but creationist and much of "intelligent design" dogmas are faith (fundamentalist, literalist) based. "True science" and yes "true critical thiniing" and common sense ARE taught in the schools, most of the public ones at least. The only place these criticisms have in the curriculum are the acknowledgement that they exist and to refute them as necessary. Several of these criticisms are addressed in a Q&A session available as open access in the journal Nature.

Gopher, you seem to forget that we both have the same evidence. The difference is how we interpret it, you seem to look at the evidence from a secular world view and I look at it from a Biblical world view. When you say "ENS", I believe you are speaking about "variation of kinds." As I stated, I do believe in variation, ie: different types of dogs. But a cat has never produced a non-cat and a dog has never produced a non-dog. Darwinian evolutions, (molecules to man) not only leaves natural science (observable, testable, repeatable), but it takes a great leap of faith! If your want to teach evolution, fine, I admit that my belief is faith, you so should do the same. Oh by the way, tell me what your faith in Darwin has done for you and I will tell you what my faith in Jesus Christ has done for me. God Bless.

Re : 2:08 tuxman, AMEN

Tuxman, HRH419: we are not dealing with the same evidence. Your "Biblical world view" requires you to pick and choose "evidence" to be interpreted to rationalize your foregone conclusion. Your interpretation of evolution by natural selction (ENS) as "variation in kind" does not make your interpretation valid. Your previous "questions" show misunderstanding and lack of comprehension on what kind of questions would invlaidate ENS. They show a partial understanding at the level of Aristotelean philosphy at best and flasehood at worst, hardly "true science". Even "common sense" only works if it can be validated.

Acceptance of ENS and other good science is most ceratinly not "faith" in contrast to your Biblical World View. You yourself called my view "secular", therefore it can't be "faith" by definition. "My" views (and that of thousands of scientists) are scientific; calling them "secular" is arguable and is probably irrelevant (since many scientists are also people of faith). That's why "good" science continues to be taught in schools (public at least) and yours insn't (and shouldn't be).

Gopher: You are so right. Many scientists are also people of faith. God gave humans complex minds to use and to discern ; to think about complex matters and figure out things on one's own, not to just parrot . That is why there is so much difference of opinion; why people make different choices. Education and knowledge is a very good and essential thing in most people's estimation. To study science to learn more about this world and to apply it to improving lives, including in medicine, the environment and other areas, is such a plus.

Forgive me, I am only a high school graduate and like to use small word. Natural Selection is a “loss of information.” Variation in species comes from loss of genetic information. DNA is pre-programmed to reproduce after its kind. Again, mutations are always negative. Please understand that words have meanings and if you look up the definition of “faith” you will understand why evolution (meaning: molecules to man) falls under the definition of “faith”. As far as using “good” science, I agree that good science is the only type to use. Since we are on the subject of “good,” if evolution is true, then how can you define what is “good?” If you are nothing more than a random chemical reaction from millions of years of evolution, how can you even be sure what you are thinking right now? Just for fun, could you please give me just one example of one kind of animal that has been “observed” changing into a different kind of animal? Proverbs 1:7 Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.