I would say the views are the ones posting here and since there are only maybe 5 of us active in the thread. But as I said you are not going to change anyones views and I am not going to change anyones views.

These are things that you either believe in or you don't.

Hot off the press. A very interesting story. There were paleontologists at this construction site because they might uncover fossils, due to it's proximity to the La Brea Tar Pits (prediction of a fossil find before it occurs). Sure enough a nearly intact mammoth was uncovered. But one sentence caught my attention:

The construction was being monitored by a consulting firm because the site is so close to the La Brea tar pits -- a site that has yielded between 3 million and 4 million fossilized bones.

So that many fossils have been found in one site, so far. No stretch at all to then make the conclusion that there are trillions of fossils around the globe. Check mark on question number one of the absurd list of questions from Robert Congelliere.

This is what drives scientists crazy. It's this kind of stuff that I consider an assault on rational thinking.

Blaine woman trying to get anti-evolution initiative on state ballot
SAM TAYLOR / THE BELLINGHAM HERALD

Kim Struiksma doesn't think evolution should be taught in schools. So the 25-year-old Blaine resident, along with a group of friends from her church, have fashioned Initiative 1040, which "concerns a supreme ruler of the universe." The initiative would prohibit "state use of public money or lands for anything that denies or attempts to refute the existence of a supreme ruler of the universe, including textbooks, instruction or research," according to paperwork filed on the Washington Secretary of State's Web site. Struiksma said during a telephone interview Wednesday, Feb. 18, that the initiative version online is being revamped and a second one would be offered to improve some the language.

"I think probably at least that more creation science is overlooked as not belonging in the public school system because of the religion (aspect)," she said. Citing the state Constitution, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the initiative states it "is about requiring our government to do its job, to protect our liberty, a liberty which has been endowed by our Creator, the one responsible for Blessing us, the Supreme Ruler of the Universe."

Struiksma and her grassroots group of supporters have a long road to go to get the initiative on the ballot. An initiative sponsor has to submit 241,153 valid voter signatures by July 3 to qualify, said Secretary of State Communications Director David Ammons.

Struiksma got the idea to offer up the initiative after hearing a presentation at Grace Baptist Church in Bellingham by Tom Hoyle, who operates Bible and Sciences Ministries out of Tacoma. Hoyle has been "actively involved in creation science missions for over 20 years," according to his Web site, hoyle.nwcreation.net. Hoyle disagrees with Struiksma and says it's OK to teach evolution in schools. He argues that evolution is a legitimate scientific theory, but it's incomplete and can't fully explain the existence of design in nature. And he is upset that schools don't allow those conversations to be had in public schools. "You don't have to mention God, you can simply emphasize the fact that wow, nature is awesome, it's very well designed and that macroevolution is an insufficient mechanism to explain all this stuff," he said.

Western Washington University biology professor David Leaf has taught classes on intelligent design and evolution to biology majors and has acted as a consultant to a group of Burlington-Edison School District residents who fought against intelligent design being offered in schools in the Skagit Valley. He said he believes the initiative operates on a "flawed assumption ... that the teaching of evolution in schools has anything to do with supporting or not supporting whether or not there is a supreme being." Struiksma and others are trying to contact conservative talk-show hosts and other groups to get their initiative message out, hoping they can get more support that way.

And on the lighter side, Virginia GOP Chair Jeff Frederick shares his views of Lincoln and Darwin. I say on the lighter side, only because of his inneptness. I guess it's more sad than funny.

Virginia GOP Chair goes all Cro-Magnon on Darwin, on his birthday | Right Wing Watch

This is, as is evident from the posts in this thread, a sensitive subject. Those who have posted have very definite positions on this issue. Positions that will not change no matter how many posts end up in this thread. I have no intentions to change any of the positions already stated, but to merely state my opinion as others have already done.
First off I am not a highly educated man; I do not work in a professional realm where intellect is abound. I rather consider that what I know of most things in life, I have gained through my experience and observation. Most of my working life has been spent in steel mills and construction. In these xxx8216;middlexxx8217; middle years I have found myself in more of a public relations/ sales role. Being of this type of employment has afforded me the opportunity to meet and talk to a wide range of people. What I have learned from many discussions about many varied issues is, to me at least, the core difference between the two main positions stated in this thread.
I have learned in my conversations that and this is a simple generalization Evolution occurs by a genetic mutation. Why such mutations occur we don not understand we just know they do occur. So in essence all of the change that has ever occurred has by chance. xxx8216;Somethingxxx8217; sparked the beginning of the universe, as the universe has expanded, debris happenxxx8217; to collide. These collisions caused chemical, magnetic, and electrical reactions that gave birth to the planets. Once formed our planet the earth sustained collisions from meteors and comets that caused further reactions similar to those mentioned above. Some of these reactions caused the beginning of life. From there genetic mutations explain, to some degree, the progression of life from that of a single celled organism to the life forms found on Earth today. As I said this is a very simple generalization of the Theory of Evolution as put forth by Charles Darwin. There are many articles, and papers that go into much greater detail than I am able to understand, as many people have devoted their entire careers to the study of this very Theory.
My knowledge of Creationism has come to my very much the same way. As I understand it. God created the Heavens and the Earth. He created the flora and fauna and lastly he created man. He created man not only for himself, but as custodian, caretaker to everything that came before him. That is pretty much it. It is simple as is my interpretation of the Theory of Evolution.
So what is the difference? To me it is simple; purpose. The Evolution theory does not give any purpose for us to exist. Without purpose there is no responsibility. Why should I struggle in an attempt to raise my child to be good and moral and responsible if only chance is going to determine her future? Why should I conserve fuel, live healthy, or any of these other things we are confronted with in this day in age, if there is no purpose to my life. I reject that. I reject not the notion that my life, my species, my world only exists by chance. At the end of the evening as I walk down the hall to my bedroom I look in on my daughter, I make sure she is sleeping and ok. In the morning I drive to work, surrounded by some of the most beautiful country anywhere in the world. Looking at all of this I know my purpose. I know my responsibility I know why Ixxx8217;m here. Evolution lacks that. I have seen too many times that people are no longer responsible for their actions. My parents are to blame, that cruel teacher in grade school is to blame, and a bully is to blame. Could this attitude be the result of teaching someone that he/she is on this earth only because of chance? Could it be that without that faith and the understanding of onexxx8217;s self that comes with it, we are in fact unable to determine what is best for not only ourselves, but our children and our earth? You may not think that teaching a child Evolution does no harm, but we know children think, they learn, they absorb what is going on around them. Children have the capacity to know that if they are here only by chance then there is no point to the rest of it. All the societies that have ever existed have taught that their existence has a purpose, all of them. It appears that having that purpose, that sense of responsibility, is key.

That ladies and gentleman is my $1,000.02!

Very interesting. I get what you're saying. All I can say is that it should not be the purpose of evolutionary biologists to infer some moral code from their studies. Why should it be? I don't know of any other branch of science that is so burdoned.

Why should you do all the things you mention? Because you are a good and decent human being. And it is your responsibility to teach your children well. That shouldn't be the responsibility of your child's public school science teacher.

Wirelessly posted

I believe that evolutionary science does have that burden. I believe that beacuse it is the only one that has undertaken the origin of mankind. To think in science, any disclipine, that they only answers the question of how and never endevor to answer why is a bit careless. Chemistry not only wants to know how chemicls react they way but why do they react the way they do. Physics does not ony try to understand how thing act but why they act that way. So evolution science has to not only answer the question how 'we' happened, but why.

To answer the theoretical linkage questions of "why" and "how" is of course part of the package that must be addressed by and science. To generalize that to the level of addressing the questions of morality is, IMHO, a significant stretch.

Wirelessly posted

To think that science has no moral effect on society is a far greater stretch. Every major scientific discovery has not only had a profound effect on its immediate community. Those discoveries have also had efects on society. To think that evolutionary science only has to answer the simple mechanics, without reguard on its effect on society is careless.

I just don't get your arguments. There are other branches of science that help with these areas (Psychology and Psychiatry), as well as clergy, friends and others. And really, eminent scientists do struggle with how their findings will affect society at large. Have you ever read any biographies on Darwin? He struggled greatly with his discoveries and how he should communicate them to other scientists. He knew he would be vilified by many. But does that mean he should withhold his discoveries? And again, I don't see other branches of science that others feel compelled to closely examine with a skeptical eye. Scientists who study medicine make discoveries that effect society in much bigger ways than those studying evolution.

From Talkorigins:

Claim CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview.

Source: Moon, Rev. Sun Myung. 1990 (27 Mar.). Parents day and I.

Response:

Evolution is descriptive. It can be immoral only if attempting to accurately describe nature is immoral.

Any morals derived from evolution would have to recognize the fact that humans have evolved to be social animals. In a social setting, cooperation and even altruism lead to better fitness (Wedekind and Milinski 2000). The process of evolution leads naturally to social animals such as humans developing ethical principles such as the Golden Rule.

Some bad morals, such as eugenics and social Darwinism, are based on misunderstandings of evolution. Therefore, it is important that evolution be taught well to negate such misunderstandings.

Despite claims otherwise, creationism has its own problems. For one thing, it is founded on religious bigotry, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral.

Probably the most effective weapon against bad morals is exposure and publicity. Evolution (and science in general) is based on a culture of making information public.

Scientists are their own harshest critics. They have developed codes of ethical behavior for several circumstances, and they have begun to talk about a general ethics (Rotblat 1999). Creationists have nothing similar.

Some people feel better about themselves by demonizing others. Those people who are truly interested in morals begin by looking for immorality within themselves, not others.

After thinking about your posts a little bit, I suspect that I am coming part way toward agreeing with you. The standard that I am comparing to is the nuclear bomb effort in WWII and the physicists who worked on it.

Clearly, their efforts there had huge moral impact, and is still being debated to this day. Some would argue that they should have refused to create the bomb. Others are aghast at the number of lives -- both Japanese and American -- that would have been lost in an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Obviously it was built and we live with the consequences to this day.

In this context I can readily agree that an individual scientist's humanity must come to the fore and they must address for him/herself their personal moral stance on the subject. And once having taken that stance they must be willing to accept the consequences of their actions.

Where I differ with you is that you appear to wish that this linkage is a part of the science per se. I disagree. It is in my opinion a consequence of the science, and a moral obligation of the scientist to evaluate the consequences of the science and their actions. An immoral or amoral scientist could elect to behave in ways that humanity would shudder at -- think Nazi eugenics in WWII -- and should accept the legal and moral consequences not for their science but for their complete and utter lack of humanity.

That is why even though I aam a firm advocate of the scientific method I also am an advocate of teaching philosophy and the humanities, and that as a person one is not whole without some balance in these domains.

I agree to an extent. And I would emphasize that it is not the biological scientist's domain to teach philosophy and humanities.

To say to an evolutionary biologist that he must consider the moral implications of his research doesn't make sense. To attempt to understand the natural world is neither moral nor amoral. It's simply a quest for truth.

Agree 100%. Have people skilled at teaching philosophy do that training..

Genesis 1:27
the truth

So what is this bible thumping BS supposed to mean?

The combination of the favorite comedian thread and this one made me think of this George Carlin skit on religion.

YouTube - George Carlin: Religion is Bullshit

Its not BS. Its the truth believe it if you want or not. Its your choice to burn in hell for all eternity or not. But hey if thats what you want so be it.

But since you started this now I will get ugly as well. I think you are so full of shit your breath stinks.

Let's restate that this area will remain for the most part unmoderated.

djm2, whether you agree with it or not, insulting one's religious is quite personal. Please refrain from the personal insults. You know what you are doing.

Dawg, ditto. Some people can't help that what is down inside comes up in the breath. :) So, please watch the language.