I enjoyed reading this.

Brad Hirschfield: Fighting Science in the Name of God

Goes with the story above. Pretty scary. At least to me.

Creationists seek to stop the teaching of global warming | MNN - Mother Nature Network

And one more. Sorry for the triple post.

Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets - NYTimes.com

A snip from the article:

John G. West, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, a group that advocates intelligent design and has led the campaign for teaching critiques of evolution in the schools, said that the institute was not specifically promoting opposition to accepted science on climate change. Still, Mr. West said, he is sympathetic to that cause.

“There is a lot of similar dogmatism on this issue,” he said, “with scientists being persecuted for findings that are not in keeping with the orthodoxy. We think analyzing and evaluating scientific evidence is a good thing, whether that is about global warming or evolution.”

I would love it if John G. West, senior fellow (whatever that is) would present a prominent scientist or two that is being 'persecuted for findings that are not in keeping with the orthodoxy'.

I really like reading Ed Brayton's stuff. He's calling out Pat Buchanan in this one.

Buchanan Blathers Ignorantly About Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

I actually believe in the concept of evolution. What I don't believe is that the current form is completely correct. Science teaches us that theories evolve also as more data is availible.

I also believe that most of the "End of Worlders" are nuts. If you want to have some fun with these nut jobs ask them who is the Jesus 2 and Jesus 3 referred to in Revelations. Only logical explaination is that Jesus 1 had kids and Revelation is a history till about 114 AD and not a predication of the future.

I also do not believe in global warming. What I do believe in is the periodic change in climate. It will go warm for a while and cold for a while. In other words if the Gulf of Mexico water touches the Great Salt Lake again are we going to call the new body of water the Delaware Sea or the Colorado Sea? I have asked this of some of the global warming nut jobs and they have no idea of the history of the earth. In my opinion quite a few of them must have "End of Worlder" genes in them.

No particular group has a monopoly on smarts or stupidity. It seems to be spread around fairly evenly.

Well, I will allow mriff to comment for himself, but I will make a prediction that he'll agree with your comment that "all theories evolve..." That is inherently the nature of science.

Curiously within the context of this thread, the theories that stay around are those that are the "fittest" and do the best job of explaining the existing data. And even neater is when there is a true scientific revolution (ala Kuhn), the replacement theory typically explains everything that the original one did, and then more. Consider how Newtonian physics was subsumed by the theory of relativity.

Global warming could be another thread. The only reason I brought it up was that it is now apparently part of the 'wedge' from the good ol' Discovery Institute. But suffice it to say, humans are having an impact on the global climate. To say otherwise is folly, in my humble opinion. (As just one example, look at the loss of rain forests in South America.) I also agree with you T-Bolt, that there are obvious cycles of climate change that also effect climate, regardless of what effects the human population may be causing.

Anyway, back on topic. Sure, of course the Theory of Evolution is 'evolving'. Almost daily. It's the nature of scientific inquiry. There's great debate currently about dinosaur to bird evolution. As far as the Theory of Evolution, there are many thousands of scientists working in the field of evolutionary biology in one form or another. And they are all publishing at a rapid rate, thus continuing to build on body of work. Scientists dispute each other all the time. They even get pissed at each other. This leads to yet more research to prove one hypothesis or another.

So, here's the challenge to anyone willing to take it up. Find any scientific experiment published in peer reviewed journals that brings the Theory of Evolution into dispute. And trust me, as I have said many times in this thread, if it happens, the scientific community will be completely nuts about it and it will be big news. An alternate theory about how life has evolved that can be tested and proven true will be a Nobel winner.

Nice avatar djm2.

One of the more interesting ideas I have read about reguarding evolution is that every once in a while a virus evolves that attacks the DNA structure of eggs and/or sperm. Every once in a while a significantly different child results from the modified DNA that survives and reproduces. This explains the radical step changes along the clads.

I do not disagree that humans can affect the global climate. On the other hand a nice volcano can do far more to change the global weather in short order than we can except for a full scale nuclear exchange. What bothers me is that the normal global cycles seem to be forgotten and humans are given credit for every change in temperature or other change.

Ok, I would sure like to see some references to this research. This does not explain drastic change at all to me. Evolution is based on change in species, not change in individuals. So if you could post some references, I would appreciate it.

As I said, I don't disagree that there are natural events that can cause catastrophic change in climate. But does that mean we just ignore our potential impact on the global climate? That would be like saying that since it's possible that I might get hit by a bus at some point in the future, that I should just give up on maintaining good health. There are things you can do for yourself as well as your planet in the off chance that the bus or meteor doesn't arrive anytime soon.

Next trip to DC, I plan on visiting the new Human Origins hall at the Smithsonian.

Smithsonian Human Origins Program - Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History

That would be interesting to see!

mriff, I have tried to find the article that I read concerning the impact of viruses on evolution and so far I cannot find it. I may have given the article to someone. I am still looking.

Ok, thanks. Sounds like it would be interesting reading.

I did find a reference to the Black Plague and those that survived it. They survived because their DNA had a specific combination. It is interesting that this DNA combination (I think it was called single and double Omega) also allows people to survive AIDS. I remember that a village in England got Plague and was isolated. The outside dumped food off every once in a while so the people would not starve. After about a year they went in and were surprised that some of the people survived. If I remember the single omega (from one parent) got sick but generally survived while the double omega (from both parents) did not get sick. If I remember this was also on either NOVA or Secrets of the Dead. Love my PBS!

if this has been posted already forgive me...

Siberian Fossil Yields Ancient DNA of Long-Lost Human Ancestor - BusinessWeek

An interesting article on tree evolution.

Tree-mendous - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com

An advanced way to use DNA analysis. Pretty crazy to think about the possibility of several species of hominids living in close proximity to each other and maybe even friendly to each other.

An interesting article.

Evolution defense behind theologian's ouster? - Rod Dreher

He's right. Refusing to deal with evolution, or any branch of science, WILL make Christianity a cult. The deliberate refusal of any group of people to understand and acknowledge the position of the majority (even if they themselves disagree), will marginalize both that group and its own points. And the more Christians feel marginalized by society, the more many of them will argue for "protecting" themselves from it... thereby establishing a cult.

In addition to creating a cult, an inability to intelligently discuss such issues with non-Christians will make any future growth of the church highly unlikely. These are the very sticking points that keep "unchurched" people from believing. They must be discussed, therefore, whether or not people in the church consider them immaterial to Christ's message. (I fall in that camp.)

Interesting, but sadly misguided. IMHO.

Ervin Laszlo: Evolution Presupposes Design, So Why the Controversy?