Humanists Seek to Honor Scopes ‘Monkey’ Trial Evolutionist with Statue in Courthouse Lawn

Rhea County CourthouseDAYTON, Tenn. – A humanist organization that has repeatedly fought against public displays of prayer or Christianity is now raising funds to erect a statue in a courthouse lawn of Clarence Darrow—the promoter of evolution in the famous Scopes “Monkey” Trial.

The American Humanist Association (AHA) is a group based in Washington, D.C., that believes in “good without a god.” In addition to promoting humanism, the AHA opposes many public displays of prayer, scripture, or Christianity.

As previously reported, the AHA threatened last year to file a lawsuit against a Georgia school district because the district did not prohibit football coaches from leading prayers. The AHA has similarly threatened to sue the Missouri National Guard for allowing a display of Bibles, a Mississippi school district after a pastor delivered a sermon and prayer at a convocation, an Air Force base for requiring a serviceman to say “so help me God” in an oath, and another Georgia school district for displaying two Bible verses on school property.

Now, the humanist organization is supporting an effort to erect a statue of Clarence Darrow on the grounds of the Rhea County Courthouse in Dayton, Tennessee. The courthouse is where Darrow famously defended the teaching of evolution in the Scopes “Monkey” Trial of 1925.

“The trial brought the teaching of evolution to public attention in an unprecedented way,” the AHA’s website notes. “The AHA and members of the Dayton, TN community hope to honor Clarence Darrow with a statue to celebrate his contributions to American civil liberties and the law.”

Sculptors Zeno and Rosalie Frudakis first proposed the statue idea, and the AHA is now raising funds for the project.

The Scopes trial of 1925 was a pivotal moment in the creation-evolution debate, as Darrow, a self-professed agnostic, sought to ridicule Christianity and the Bible’s teachings about the origin of life. William Jennings Bryan, a Christian and skilled orator, articulated arguments against evolution.

  • Connect with Christian News

During the 12-day trial, Darrow and Bryan argued over the right of high school teacher John Scopes to teach evolution in the local Rhea County high school. Though a Tennessee law prohibited the teaching of evolution at the time, Darrow saw the highly-publicized trial as an opportunity to discredit Bryan’s Christianity, the Bible, and biblical creation.

“My object and my only object,” Darrow later remembered, “was to focus the attention of the country on the program of Mr. Bryan and the other fundamentalists in America.”

Over the course of the trial, Darrow repeatedly attacked the Bible’s reliability.

“Much of Darrow’s effort at the trial amounted to a caustic diatribe against the Bible and Christianity,” wrote Ken Ham and Dr. David Menton in an article on the Answers in Genesis website. “His anti-Christian hostility was so intense that there was fear on the part of liberal theologians and organizations that supported his evolutionary views that he might turn popular opinion against them. Darrow even turned his anger and hostility against Judge John T. Raulston by repeatedly interrupting and insulting him, for which he was cited for contempt of court.”

If the AHA’s fundraising efforts are successful, then Darrow will be memorialized with a statue on the very courthouse lawn where the Scopes trial took place 90 years ago. Proponents of the project argue that placing a statue of Darrow on the courthouse lawn would be fair, as there is already a statue of Bryan on the lawn. However, many Christians argue that Darrow’s legacy is not one of civil liberties or scientific progress, but rather secular immorality and evolutionary indoctrination.

“After years of such indoctrination, a generation has now arisen that is also (logically) rejecting the morality based on the Bible,” Ham and Menton wrote. “Today, with, for example, the removal of the Ten Commandments from public places, we are seeing the increasing elimination of the Christian foundational structure in the nation.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Gary

    Clarence Darrow is now screaming in Hell. When you reject the Bible, you also reject God, which means you must bear the penalty of your sins.

    • MisterPine

      Proof?

      • getstryker

        Wait for it . . . you’ll get your ‘proof’ . . .

        • MisterPine

          Not holding my breath.

          • getstryker

            Well, there’s your problem . . . you’re still breathing 😉 You want ‘proof’ – one way is accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior, which will absolutely prove His existence. The only other way to gain the ‘proof’ you demand is to stop breathing – permanently. Your ‘proof’ has a biblical answer: “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” – Hebrews 9:27 (KJV) God gives you an entire lifetime (however long that may be) to decide – accept or reject – it’s still YOUR choice. Choose wisely!

          • MisterPine

            I daresay the one who’s going to be surprised when he stops breathing is you.

          • getstryker

            Let’s consider the options:

            First, can we agree that there are only three (3) options that are possible: Heaven, Nothingness or Hell?

            Option#1 – If I am correct and accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior assures someone of Heaven, then, I go to Heaven. Yea me! (BTW – you and everyone else can choose this option too)

            Option#2 – BUT, if you are correct and when we both stop breathing, we just ‘die’ and there is only ‘Nothingness’ – we both end up ‘no place’ and we just don’t exist or care. We’re just dead and that’s what everyone gets so I’m stuck with it too. HOWEVER . . .

            Option#3 – is a real bummer. If the ‘Nothingness’ option is gone, then ‘Heaven and Hell’ are still in play. If Jesus and Heaven is real and you don’t become ‘born-again’ as He says you must to go to Heaven – then the only option left is going to Hell – My Bible assures me that nobody is going to like that option. There are only three (3) options – Option#2 we can’t do anything about – Option#1 and #3 are left – It’s your choice. Choose wisely!

          • Al Aquino

            Wrong there are more then 3 options. What if reincarnation is the answer. Or one of the eastern religions afterlife? What if there is a heaven and hell but its the Mormons that are correct or the Muslims? What if its not the Christian God then wouldn’t that god be more pissed that you believed in a false god then the real one. There are more after life choices then heaven and hell as there are thousands of religions in this world.
            So what if you picked the wrong one?

          • getstryker

            Yeah . . . what if? Like I said – it’s your choice. Choose wisely!

          • Karl Mamer

            One can even apparently pick the Christian god but worship that god in the wrong way and go to hell. There are plenty of Christians who make the silly claim about “picking god” who will also claim Mormons, J-dubs, Catholics, and devout Jews are going to hell with the Muslims, Atheists, and Hindus.

    • Frank

      He’s screaming Mulligan, mulligan, muligan!!!

    • Karl Mamer

      Is that your judgement?

  • Paul Hiett

    Can’t see why anyone would object to this statue. Equality for all, right folks?

    • getstryker

      Yeppers, the pigeons need a place to sit and s_it . . . on top of a statue of Clarence Darrow seems appropriate!

      • Al Aquino

        You do know that there is already a statue of William Jennings Bryan up at that court house right? So according to you logic pigeons have been crapping on him since 2005.

        • getstryker

          The discussion concerned the statue of Darrow – if there are others there too, I’m sure that the pigeons are having a ‘hay-day’ on all of them. (Funny, I got the mental picture of pigeons doing ‘their business’ on a statue which reminded me of what so many politicians – Republicans and Democrats, liberals and Rino’s and Progressives’ have been doing to this country for the last couple of hundred years – just my opinion 😉

  • bowie1

    Why should they be allowed to display any kind of statue on public property if they oppose any other kind of religious display?

    • Paul Hiett

      Shouldn’t everyone be able to place a statue?

      • bowie1

        I would think so, if there is room for it.

      • Tara

        yes, EVERYone should.

      • Al Aquino

        No the statue is part of the history of that specific court house. And its basically there to balance the statue of William Jennings Bryan which the court house already has.

    • Shayna2

      It’s not religious

      • bowie1

        So what? If they oppose any other kind of display why should humanists have an exception, since it reflects the opinions of a con man like Darwin, and those who support his philosophy?

        • Al Aquino

          You should have done some research before ranting all over the site. It doesn’t matter if you believe in evolution or not this statue is about the history of the court house. There is already a statue of William Jennings Bryan so this statue is just a balance. Its history nothing else.

    • Al Aquino

      Cause this is about history. There is already a statue at that court house of William Jennings Bryant who was on the creationist side so it seems fine to me to add the other lawyer.

  • Regina Forbes

    I don’t mind a statue of some prominent lawyer from the turn of the century. In fact, I would also like to see a statue of William Jennings Bryan because of his work in politics and economics.

    • Mike Lee

      His statue already exists there. It when up in 2005. This statue is to balance that one.

  • MisterPine

    What is the issue here? Evolution isn’t a religion, it’s science.

    • getstryker

      Oh yeah . . . ‘evolution is science’ – you can prove that “everything came from nothing?” . . . with all the ‘coulda, shoulda, mighta, we think, possibly, and with a definite maybe’ added in to prove the point . . . certainly no ‘faith’ required there . . . When you talk ‘evolution’, why that’s ‘science’ for sure! Uh huh?!

      • MisterPine

        “Everything came from nothing” is a strawman. And you know this.

        • getstryker

          Oh, that’s right . . . everything we see in the universe, you, me and all the ‘other stuff’ came from the Big Bang model that suggests that at some moment ‘all of space’ was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe. And that ‘single point’ is no larger than the ‘period’ at the end of this sentence. (see that – everything from this . – WOW) – No faith required to buy that ‘whopper’ is there? Evolution IS a religion! You can’t prove ‘evolution’ and I can’t tell you where ‘God’ came from – it’s ALL about ‘FAITH’ – you can certainly believe what you want!

          • MisterPine

            Are you Oboehner’s boyfriend? You sound like you’ve been drinking the same Kool Aid.

          • getstryker

            My, my . . . that’s the best response you could come up with?? Name calling and slander . . . ??? Sad son, real sad!

          • MisterPine

            Read between the lines a bit. You are guilty of all the same things Oboehner is. Strawman arguments, willful ignorance, a refusal to accept the authority of what we learn from science.

          • getstryker

            Hahahaha . . . Evolution and ‘the authority of science’ . . . you ever look up the definition of an OXYMORON? Sad boy, real sad . . . Here, you ‘read between the lines’ . . . I’m through with you.

          • MisterPine

            Good luck in the real world.

          • Shayna2

            So ALL the natural history museums in the ENTIRE world are wrong? Ain’t faith, m’boy.

          • getstryker

            Yep, every last one of them that claim evolution is the basis and fact of our existence. Bones can’t talk – they can only lay there and let us make guesses about the what and the who and the when. It’s ALL speculation. You weren’t there, they weren’t there, nobody was there when it all began – To claim it’s “evolution and science” is an OXYMORON. I say God created it all and you ask: “Where did God come from?” and you tell me I wasn’t there and I agree. So we go round and round and neither of us convinces the other. Oh yes, it IS all about FAITH m’girl, for both of us!

          • Shayna2

            So, you think science is just an opinion & everyone’s opinion is equal? Perhaps, next time you need surgery, you should just ask someone who knows how to butcher meat.

          • getstryker

            No, let’s define our terms. In my world, There is ‘hard science and ‘soft science’ . . . ‘hard science’ is creates ‘cars, computers, medicine, all the ‘things’ we live with, touch, see and feel everyday. ‘Soft science,’ by my defination, is all that which is ‘speculation and guess work, it’s someone’s opinion based on what ‘coulda, shoulda, mighta, we think with a definate maybe’ thrown in. Evolution Is NOT ‘hard science’ but only theory and imagination all mixed in with real ‘hard science’ and made to look like it’s ALL science. Whether you believe God did it or evolution did it – they both take FAITH.

          • Marvels of life

            An interesting perspective. Good comment.

          • Guest
          • Marvels of life

            I am a little hesitant to do so. I really do appreciate your interest. Is their a particular reason for your interest in my situation? I have read your comments. Your very kind to take an interest in me.

          • getstryker

            I apologize for the delay in responding – I did not realize that I was not logged in properly and did not get your email response.. Yes, I am in So. California currently but am in the process of moving to Florida to set up a ministry. Details of that later. I have researched your comments and I know that you are Christian and I like your writing style. I am aware of your ‘condition’ and I am ‘no threat’ – I want nothing from you other than an opportunity to present you with my offer. You may certainly take it or leave it – your choice. Please contact me.

          • Marvels of life

            I sent you an email. Thank you.

          • Shayna2

            Are you aware that we can use plasma from chimps? Sounds like a hard science connection.

          • getstryker

            Why no, I did not know that. Interesting. That means that a component of blood found in a creature is similar to that found in humans, so much so that it’s use is interchangeable. And you say ‘hard science’ found that connection. WOW – Now, do you claim this ‘plasma similarity’ occurred by ‘evolution’ or, as I would submit, it was the result of an ‘intelligent designer’ called God? Now, please don’t start the ‘man descended from apes’ thing. Beyond that – I submit this comment from a study titled: “Chimpanzees – Test Results That Don’t Apply To Humans” – (excerpt) “There are many physiologic and anatomical differences between chimpanzees and humans. These differences make them a poor “model” for humans. Data obtained on chimpanzees cannot be extrapolated safely to the human situation.: (about the 3rd paragraph in article)
            http://www.pcrm.org/pdfs/research/testing/exp/ae_chimps.pdf
            BTW – if we’re going to go down the ‘evolution vs. creation’ road . . . please explain ‘symbiotic relationships in nature’ and ‘which came first – the chicken or the egg?’ – I’ll tell ya . . . God done it and He done it good! (Why, He even said so) ;-

          • Al Aquino

            Can your creationist theory predict where certain bones are found or predict certain types of animal before they are found. Evolution has made accurate predictions creationism has not. Evolution has help in the fields of medicine and archeology based on the predictive models of evolution. The strength of a scientific theory is has a lot to do on how accurate its predictive models are and well evolution has them while creationism has none.
            Evolution also doesn’t disprove or prove God that’s why there are lots of theistic evolutionist.

          • getstryker

            Why yes, Creationists can predict where all bones from dead things who died in the distant past are found . . . fossilized under layers of sediment laid down in a global flood. And yes, any animal that lived at any time in history has been created in the Beginning and predicted by the ultimate Creationist – we who believe call him God – why there are still some animals, fish, and other things out there we don’t even know about yet. ‘Evolution’ has done very little of the things you claim – it is people (you call them scientists) who have made predictions and drawings and interesting arguments to explain what God did . . . except that much of what they said happened are lies. For example, Haeckel’s fake embryo drawings, nice pictures of the evolution of man based on monkeys and men created from a single ‘pig’s tooth, and an old man with arthritis, etc. I didn’t claim those facts, your scientists said it. Why is it that all this so-called ‘evolution’ happened in the past and yet we see none of it happening today? (In know, it’s too slow or it’s fast) depends on who you listen to – Darwin or Gould, or whoever you want to believe in – please, explain the amazing presence of ‘symbiotic relationships in nature’ – how one does not exist without the other? Did they each ‘evolve’ at the same time? And then you can explain ‘which came first – the chicken or the egg?’ “Theistic evolution” – does not exist – people who claim to be ‘christian’ and believe that ‘whopper’ fall in the same category as the ‘educated idiots’ that want to sell you on how ‘everything came from nothing’ – Look, whatever you want to believe is fine with me – we are all entitled to our opinions Thank you for sharing yours with me.

          • Al Aquino

            First off theistic evolutionist don’t claim everything came from nothing they claim that God could have used evolution as a tool. Christians believe in God and Jesus right? The fact that you but the christians that believe in evolution as “christians” in quotes implies that you don’t think there real Christians just because they disagree with you on a technicality even though they still believe in Jesus and God this is very insulting and also arrogant. It one thing to disagree with people but the fact that your so quick to insult a huge portion of humanity is pretty telling on the type of person you are.
            Evolution has predicted where to find certain fossils that had never been found before and what type of fossils they would be. Its also been used in medicine overwhelmingly as a vast majority of the recent Nobel prizes winners in medicine used the evolutionary model for at least part of their research. Are you calling all of them idiots even if they advanced the field of medicine using evolutionary models? So has creationism ever contributed to medicine or any other field of study?
            Also if the global flood led to all fossils then they would all be mixed up. But fossils are almost always in a sequence and your global flood doesn’t work because many fossils are only found in certain locations while a global flood would have washed them all together. Before we knew about tectonic plates the location of fossils led to the theory of continental drift explain how the flood could have laid down fossils so perfectly the they would imply that?

          • getstryker

            Sorry, don’t want to seem rude but I’m done. You’re entitled to believe whatever you like – I have to get back to work. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I see Marvel of Life is exchanging with you . . . he’s a good man – you’ll enjoy the debate with him I’m sure. Good bye

          • Karl Mamer

            Evolution isn’t speculation and guess work. It’s based on “things” we can touch, see, and feel.

          • getstryker

            Mr. Mamer – Since I have already made my position known in my other comments, I can only say that you are certainly entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine, whatever they may be based on. We all see the same evidence – those ‘things’ that we can ‘touch, see and feel’ are the same – it is the conclusions we draw, based on that evidence, that is different. Thank you for sharing yours with me.

          • Karl Mamer

            You’re indeed entitled to your opinion about how a certain discipline operates. But, clearly, you have no actual knowledge of how scientific theories are tested and how science advances.

            This is how science is done. Huddle up. In science, theories make predictions. If x is true we should see y. If you see y, then it lends support to your theory of x. And, yes, evolution is tested by means that meet your touch/see/feel goalpost (aren’t touch and feel basically the same thing?). Anyway, you’re quite wrong.

          • getstryker

            Of course Mr. Mamer . . . now we do the ‘you smart – me dumb’ dialog – a waste of time. Yes, in ‘hard science’ theories make predictions and we get cars, computers, medicines, etc., . . . in the matter of ‘evolution’ – what you call ‘science’ is nothing more than imagination, speculation and guesses – whatever you want to call it. No one was there when it all started, no one has ever seen ‘evolution’ happen, in the past or today. Yes, there are ‘variations’ – but not ‘evolution’ – no one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat!. Evolutionists draw pretty pictures of the supposed stages of man’s development which have been shown to be frauds, they assign ‘ages’ in geologic columns that don’t exist and ‘phylogenetic trees’ that stretch credulity – why we get to see fake diagrams of embryonic development proven wrong a hundred years ago and still in textbook when I was in school, oh, the list goes on and on. Yes, Mr. Mamer – ‘touch and feel’ are the same thing just as ‘evolution and hard science’ are opposites – As you pointed out – I am entitled to my opinion and there you have it. You are certainly entitled to yours. We’re done!

          • Karl Mamer

            You don’t have to be dumb to be wrong about things. Smart people are wrong and misinformed all the time. You may be smart. But what is obvious to me is you are woefully misinformed about the things you seem to think you know about.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

            “No one was there when it all started, no one has ever seen ‘evolution’ happen, in the past or today”

            Evolution is seen all the time. By definition evolution “is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations”. We can see changes in heritable traits in bacteria, fruit flies, cats, dogs, etc. all the time. It’s pretty non controversial.

            You may be skeptical of what people term macro evolution, generally defined as change above the species level. Indeed, no one has seen that. Just as most murders are not seen but guilt can be determined by weighing the evidence. Not being there to see something is not troubling to science. Or courts. No one saw the cliffs of Dover form, either. Or the continents form. Or stars form. No one can see inside the sun to see what actually powers it. You cannot actually see the QM effects that make your computer work. But these things are all quite testable, measurable, and the predictions the theory makes can be seen.

          • getstryker

            Look Mr. Mamer . . . if you want to ‘slap some lipstick on the evolution pig’ and take it to the dance – fine – but don’t expect me or anyone that holds an opinion similar to mine to tap you on the shoulder. We’ve all seen that pig, with and without lipstick, and there is nothing about it we like. Folks like you that try to justify their positions are entitled to their opinions just as I am. We will never agree with one another – from your position, you can call me close minded . . . as for my position, I would call it truth. WE’RE DONE!

          • Karl Mamer

            I don’t think I’ll convince you to accept evolution. But I’m more than happy to refute your claims and point out your errors. For example, you don’t seem to even operate from a basic understanding of what science does or how evolutionary scientists actually define evolution. You’re not even getting out of the gate.

    • John Cochran

      But it counters fundamentalist religion. The extreme right wingers cannot stand anything that refutes the literal translation of their holy book. In other words, they are America’s Taliban.

    • bowie1

      If it’s science then I have a bridge for sale real cheap! No, it”s nothing but a fraud and you’ve been slickered!

      • MisterPine

        Where do you science deniers come from? Like, what planet?

        • Marvels of life

          Hello my friend. I do want to put my input in here if I may. There are real discussions in the scientific community related to evolution and the necessity to re-evaluate the findings. Even school text books are in the process of change such as those at the Texas Public School District. But I wanted to share an observation:

          A prominent chemist who was recognized this year as one of the 50 most influential scientists in the world says most scientists do not understand how evolution could explain the existence of life.

          Dr. James Tour is a well-known professor at Rice University, specializing in chemistry, nanoengineering, and computer science. Over the last 30 years, Tour has authored over 500 research publications, and he was recognized as one of “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org. Tour has also received awards and recognitions from the American Chemical Society, Thomson Reuters, Honda, NASA, and others.

          In a video released in late 2012, Tour explained that he has had extensive experience studying the origin of life.

          “I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist,” Tour said, “if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules.”

          Despite his experiences and expertise, Tour admits that he does not understand how evolution could account for life’s existence.

          “I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you,” he says in the video. “Is it okay for me to say, ‘I don’t understand this’? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.”

          However, Tour says he is not the only one who does not understand how life could have arisen through natural, unguided processes.

          “Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science—with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners,” Tour stated. “I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public—because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said—I say, ‘Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?’”

          The answer he inevitably receives, Tour explained, is: “no.”

          “Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go, ‘Uh-uh. Nope.’” Tour said. “And if they’re afraid to say ‘yes,’ they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.”

          Fair says there is an important distinction between microevolution and macroevolution—the former is clearly observable and repeatable, but the latter has never been witnessed.

          “From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution,” he wrote in a blog post. “The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution.”

          After recognizing that evolutionists are “collectively bewildered” by life’s origins, Tour joined nearly 900 other scientists in signing A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, which states: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

          If evolution cannot account for life’s existence, then how did life originate? Tour says the most reasonable answer is simple.

          “I believe fundamentally that God created us all,” he told the Houston Chronicle.

          • Karl Mamer

            Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It’s a theory that explains the origin of species. It’s like saying you can’t use a theory in chemistry because you personally don’t understand the origin of atoms.

          • Marvels of life

            I appreciate your comment. I would like if I may to share with you a scientific perspective of what is called the Privileged species. It encompasses much of the position I take related to Evolution, and design. It’s a compelling watch if you have the time. As far as I know and you can certainly make a comment related to anything as I’m sure you have interesting perspectives on Evolution.

            https://youtu.be/VoI2ms5UHWg

            Scientific evidences of the perfect environment for us as a privileged species.
            Design by Intelligence and preplanned construction of humanity.
            Optimized for science observation and discovery. Fitness of the universe by design and human forms is perfect for the earth and man’s existence.

          • Karl Mamer

            I would be happy to watch the video. However, it’s doubtful after watching a 30 minute video the things you find compelling are the things I would find compelling in the video. Could you summarize the three things from that video you find MOST compelling? I’d be happy to consider those.

          • Marvels of life

            Yes sir.

            Dr. Denton extends the argument for intelligent design to the ultra-,
            ultra-fine-tuning of the cosmos for carbon-based life forms like
            ourselves. You cannot watch these 33 minutes without coming away with
            the very powerful conclusion that the universe was designed with us very
            specifically in mind.

            The documentary investigates the special properties of carbon, water,
            and oxygen that make human life and the life of other organisms
            possible, and it explores some of the unique features of humans that
            make us a truly privileged species.

          • Karl Mamer

            Okay, so I’m reading you find these claims compelling:

            1) Fine tuning of the cosmos is positive evidence for a god.
            2) Special properties of carbon, water, and oxygen are positive evidence for god.
            3) Humans have unique features (these are detailed in the video?) that offers positive evidence for god?

            And none of these are simply “god of the gaps” arguments? As in “We don’t know and since we don’t know therefore my god hypothesis wins by default?”

            Because god of the gaps arguments, merely detailing what we don’t know, isn’t very compelling evidence for any hypothesis, including claims of a god.

            For example, “I don’t know” to me is a fine position to explain why I’m always missing socks after doing the wash. My sister’s “sock stealing troll” hypothesis doesn’t win because I can’t explain how my socks go missing.

          • Marvels of life

            I can see how you may think of “God of the gaps”. I would like to further explain positions as representative from scientific interpretation:
            Forgive me, this will take more than one comment to complete:

            Over the past sixty years, dedicated and skillful scientists have
            devoted much effort and ink to the origin of life, with remarkably
            little to show for it. Judging by the volume of literature, both
            experimental and theoretical, the inquiry has thrived prodigiously. But
            unlike more conventional fields of biological research, the study of
            life’s origins has failed to generate a coherent and persuasive
            framework that gives meaning to the growing heap of data and
            speculation; and this suggests that we may still be missing some
            essential insight.

            (Franklin M. Harold, In Search of Cell History: The Evolution of Life’s Building Blocks (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014), p. 164 (emphasis added).)

          • Karl Mamer

            “Over the past sixty years, dedicated and skillful scientists have devoted much effort and ink to the origin of life, with remarkably little to show for it.”

            In your opinion. Not in mine. There’s been a lot of amazing work done to crack the chemical evolution of life.

            http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

            “But unlike more conventional fields of biological research, the study of life’s origins has failed to generate a coherent and persuasive framework that gives meaning to the growing heap of data and speculation”

            If only one person was working on HIV research, we might not be much further along in our knowledge from when we first discovered HIV back in the 80s. But we have a coherent and persuasive framework because thousands of scientists are working on HIV research. The origin of life question isn’t exactly a Manhattan level or human genome project level endeavor. You get what you pay for. Again, I would not considered a handful of scientists working on abiogensis and not having a theory on the order of the theory of evolution or relativity to be an indication the question has no explanation via natural processes.

            “this suggests that we may still be missing some
            essential insight.”

            Of course any gap in knowledge implies we’re missing some insight. But I would not yet turn to “therefore we have to plug in a god to explain this.” A long time ago no one understood lightning. It was such an astounding phenomenon people could only conclude it must created specifically by a god. It defied all possible explanation 2,000 years ago. That gap in knowledge has been filled by a natural explanation.

            To your video:

            Claim: The universe is fine tuned to allow life to flourish. (4:33)

            Claim: the four fundamental forces are set in such a way to allow stars and galaxies to form, the existence of elements above hydrogen, and other things. (4:40)

            The vast majority of the universe is pretty hostile to life. Try to spend more than a minute on any other body in the solar system other than earth. It doesn’t seem fine tuned to allow life to flourish to me. The thesis is contradicted later by claims life doesn’t really flourish. Hrm.

            Again, this is an “I don’t know how these constants came about therefore god” type argument. There are many natural explanations such as a multiverse where constants are different and we just happen to live in one of the few that won the cosmic lottery ticket. I really don’t see this as compelling, positive evidence for a god. It’s an “I don’t know.”

            Now if you had a specific, testable mechanism how god harry pottered all this into existence, that would be interesting positive evidence. Have your ID scientists come up with the much needed “coherent and persuasive framework” for how it all came to be? If not, they’re just making things up too.

            Claim: Without water there would likely be no life. (5:28)

            Interesting opinion but who knows how something we’d recognize as life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions) might evolve without needing water? That said, there’s lots of water in the universe. We can see large amounts all over our solar system. I find nothing astounding here. Chemistry happens with or without a god.

            Claim: Carbon is only stable in a narrow range of temperatures. IE those found on Earth. (9:26)

            Again, odd in this universe that seems to be designed to let life flourish there aren’t many places where it can, because of carbon. There 200 billion galaxies in the known universe. Each has roughly 200 billion stars. I don’t find it hard to believe there are many earth like worlds that have the proper conditions for life. It’s a bit like saying “wow, someone won the lottery, therefore there’s a god because it’s highly improbable any one specific person would win.” No. You have a sufficiently large pool, you’re going to have winners unquestionably.

            These “privileged planet” claims are really just the lottery winner fallacy. Someone is guaranteed to win. More than one person is guaranteed to win with enough players. Because you won doesn’t mean a god or fate or some force caused you to win. “Luck is probability personified.”

          • Marvels of life

            Thank you for the information. I’ll stick with my belief in Christ, and God as the creator. Science is certainly an interesting set of methodologies but it hardly assists me with my spiritual aspirations. That can only come from my love for God and the experiences I have had related to such. Science is limited in it’s capability to interpret the conscious mind, love, the reasons for thought, experiences that are beyond explanation such as near death experiences. I found it interesting that there are now a group of scientists from different professions (one of which had a near death experience) trying to understand the similarities. Even atheist’s have had similar experiences, neuro-surgeons a diverse group. Their experiences are in my humble opinion are mysteries yet to be solved. Well, good luck with your exploration of science. I’m sure it will be fulfilling.

          • Karl Mamer

            “I’ll stick with my belief in Christ, and God as the creator.”

            I don’t think you have to abandon a god or a messiah character because science has a natural explanation for something. Just as one didn’t need to abandon a belief in a god once there was a natural explanation for lightning. I’m sure science makes it increasingly difficult to believe in a god if your god is defined by gaps. Or you try to explain the world with an overly literal interpretation of a per-scientific creation myth. You may not get left behind by your pastor but the rest of the world will certainly leave you behind, both culturally and in the job market.

            “Science is limited in it’s capability to interpret the conscious mind,
            love, the reasons for thought, experiences that are beyond explanation
            such as near death experiences.”

            Science has its limits. Indeed. Science can’t settle political questions, for example. Or matters of personal taste (I can’t use science to convince someone to like dark beer if they don’t like dark beer). Science can inform policy. But many things in life also require value judgements.

          • Marvels of life

            Oh not at all, science in fact has strengthened my belief in God as the creator. I’m not concerned with the rest of the world’s opinion of me. I believe that science has its place, and God has his place. I think it requires faith to trust in some science, since again it can be interpretive. As for myths, that is a perception of reality I don’t subscribe to. I don’t believe God is a myth. Certainly science hasn’t provided any answers that would lead me to believe God is a myth, and its unlikely that you would convince me that it was. But you have your perspective and I have mine. That is the true reality.

          • Karl Mamer

            “Certainly science hasn’t provided any answers that would lead me to
            believe God is a myth, and its unlikely that you would convince me that
            it was.”

            By the same token, there’s no scientific evidence I’ve seen that leads me to believe your god entity exists, Jesus was a real entity, or interpretations of Genesis are anything but an ancient creation myth. I put “god” and “Jesus” in the same category as I put “bigfoot”, “UFOs”, and the “Loch Ness Monster”. Maybe they’re real but there’s no evidence to abandon the null hypothesis: these entities don’t exist.

          • Marvels of life

            (smile) Well you can bring a horse to water but you certainly can’t make him drink.

          • Karl Mamer

            The problem is I’ve not seen any water, or as you put it a “coherent and persuasive framework” back by lines of evidence.

          • Marvels of life

            Please allow me to ask the following:
            1. If you don’t experience God in your life, how would it be possible to understand it?
            2. What evidence would you be inclined to accept that God is real and the Creator?
            3. I take it that your an Atheist, or if not what belief system to you subscribe to?
            4. What is your worldview?
            5. Do you have children? If so how will you answer the teenager that will question you about the things they are exposed to related to God? Many young people that I work with (I assist young women and men with being homeless to find employment and become self sufficient. One of my favorite’s is a young woman that was homeless, without work, and many questions related to the Bible. She now has her own apartment, is now working and she has so much joy related to the changes she has made. It only takes a little hope, and acknowledgement that they can do anything once they apply themselves. For them to share with their peers that they give credit to Jesus for all of the opportunities available when they felt very little hope before). It’s important at least to me to be there for these young people. They have such a difficult time and sometimes lose hope in having joy, and peace no matter the circumstances, that we take them in sometimes, give them food if they are hungry, and I work with them on applications, how to prepare for interviews etc. Christ said, when we do things for others we are doing it for him. I find that to be so fulfilling in my life.

            After speaking to many Atheist’s I’ve come to the conclusion that evidence as I define it is based on fundamental truths, experience and simply being compassionate. The evidence of God as the creator of all things are being more accepting even in the world of science and interpreting of data. These people I speak with have PHD’s in many different professions within science related to Intelligent Design principles and methodologies that are more apparent with new tools that reveal more about our Universe, our bodies, even the complex chemistry of complex beings. So I am comfortable in saying that God is not a myth at all. That is something you are welcome to argue and I appreciate your comments. I just don’t agree with them.

          • Karl Mamer

            1. If you don’t experience God in your life, how would it be possible to understand it?

            There are many things I don’t have to experience in my life that I can accept the evidence indicates they’re a real entity. In fact, I could be blind and I could accept people perceive color based on a simple and objective test.

            2. What evidence would you be inclined to accept that God is real and the Creator?

            I could think of a few ways to test the “christian god hypothesis”. Let’s say a large study tests the efficacy of prayer. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and atheists all say a daily prayer for a target randomly assigned to them. (Atheists are the control group and simply say encouraging words.) Patients prayer for by Christians do remarkably better. This study is repeated by independent researches and the effect is clear: Christians praying to their god has real world effects. I would have to conclude the likely explanation is their god is real and can affect outcomes in nature.

            So, I can set a clear goal post for what it would to abandon my belief. What would it take for you to abandon your belief in this god entity?

            3. I take it that your an Atheist, or if not what belief system to you subscribe to?

            My happiness is a product of the happiness of those around me. More I can do to make others around me happy, better off I am. Better off everyone else is.

            4. What is your worldview?

            I’m an atheist. I don’t know what you mean beyond that.

            5.
            Do you have children? If so how will you answer the teenager that
            will question you about the things they are exposed to related to God?

            I don’t have any children of my own. I would hope if I had children of my own they would be questioning me about these things well before they become teenagers. I would answer them about my own beliefs, lay out how I arrived at them, suggest to the child there can be other ways to look at metaphysical questions, and direct the child to a range of balanced age-appropriate literature. If I had a son or daughter and they became a fundamentalist christian, I’m sure I would love my child as much.

            ” These people I speak with have PHD’s in many different professions within science related to Intelligent Design principles and methodologies that are more apparent with new tools that reveal more about our Universe, our bodies, even the complex chemistry of complex beings.”

            Well, if you wanted to line up Phds in science that believe the universe requires a god to explain origins vs Phds who don’t accept that, I’m pretty sure I’d have way more on my side.

            But ultimately, what a few people with Phds think about a topic they may or may not be experts on is an argument from authority fallacy. Even smart people can be wrong.

          • Marvels of life

            Thank you very much for your perspective. I always learn a great deal when speaking with people. I’ve gone through the circular discussions before and they are usually left unanswered or worse, escalate in terms of personal attacks etc. I would rather hear the perspective than make and direct argument. My position is pretty straight forward. I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and therefore I follow the wisdom of Christ and his message to the world. I would suppose you could call it my worldview. I do sincerely appreciate you answering my questions. Have a great day.

          • Karl Mamer

            I’ll repose my one question to you. I answered five. Seems fair if I could ask you to answer only one:

            I can set a clear goal post for what it would take to abandon my belief. What would it take for you to abandon your belief in this god entity?

          • Marvels of life

            I suppose if a human being were to gain all knowledge of everything in existence that would be a proposition to consider. Or possibly if a human being could make an intelligent human being from nothing, that would also be a consideration. Other than that and even that would take me years of study before I could ever even think about changing my belief in God and Christ. But I must say it would likely be very difficult to believe in something other than God as creator, and Christ as my spiritual savior. Why, because everything is Based on experience with God throughout my life. When I say create a human being from nothing, I’m not talking about cloning, implants, etc. I’m talking about from scratch making an adult human being from nothing.

          • Karl Mamer

            “I suppose if a human being were to gain all knowledge of everything in existence that would be a proposition to consider.”

            One usually doesn’t have to set such an extreme goal post. For example, one person proposes there’s a giant ape like creature alive in the pacific northwest. Okay. Maybe. But that would suggest we should see some things: fossil evidence there was such a creature, bones found by hunters, the apes occasional hit by logging trucks in a world that’s constantly encroaching on their habitat. We’d also expect to find them, eventually, after a number of searches. No one search would be sufficient but if after 50 years of well equipped, well guided expeditions kept failing to find any evidence of the creature, one would forced to reason “the probability of this entity’s existence is vanishingly small, the safe money bet is it probably doesn’t exist.”

            “But I must say it would likely be very difficult to believe in something other than God as creator”

            I found it remarkably easy once I realized claims of a god, bigfoot, ufos, ghosts, etc. had the same level of evidence: none.

            “When I say create a human being from nothing, I’m not talking about cloning, implants, etc. I’m talking about from scratch making an adult human being from nothing.”

            Humans did not come from nothing, however. They evolved from an ancestor species.

          • Marvels of life

            To each his own.

          • Karl Mamer

            Indeed. I don’t doubt your path has led you to a happy, healthy, successful life. My path has led me to a happy, healthy, successful life as well. I would not advise anyone to abandon what work for them for what works for me.

          • Marvels of life

            Assume for a moment that there was some way to produce simple organic
            molecules on the early Earth. Perhaps they did form a “primordial soup,”
            or perhaps these molecules arose near some hydrothermal vent. Either
            way, origin of life theorists must then explain how amino acids or other
            key organic molecules linked up to form long chains (polymers) like
            proteins (or RNA).

            Chemically speaking, however, the last place you’d want to link amino
            acids into chains would be a vast water-based environment like the
            “primordial soup” or underwater near a hydrothermal vent. As the
            National Academy of Sciences acknowledges, “Two amino acids do not
            spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is
            thermodynamically favored.” In other words, water breaks protein chains
            back down into amino acids (or other constituents), making it very
            difficult to produce proteins (or other polymers) in the primordial
            soup.

            Materialists lack good explanations for these first, simple steps
            which are necessary to the origin of life. Chemical evolution is
            literally dead in the water.

          • Marvels of life

            The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but
            it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-life research has
            evolved into a lively, inter-disciplinary field, but other scientists
            often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is
            understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty”
            rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit,
            when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even
            approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure
            – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a
            validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly,
            this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to
            the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A
            succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of
            life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin
            of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make
            the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.

            (Eugene V. Koonin, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), p. 391 (emphasis added).)

          • Al Aquino

            Just because we don’t have a possible model doesn’t mean we won’t find one in the future. When asked how did life start why can’t the answer be “I don’t know?” Why does it have to be God? In the past we didn’t have a model for lighting or the movement of the stars or planetary bodies so the answer was Zeus or Apollo or some other god.
            The most honest answer as history has shown would be the answer “I don’t know but we have some ideas” I mean we still don’t have scientific models for ball lighting does that mean we will never know how it works or that God makes them directly?

          • Marvels of life

            According to a study done and a report by scientists (one of which explains also Neutrinos moving counter clockwise) states that the complexity of the world and the Universe is so fast it is ultimately impossible for a human being to be able to process that much information, even through generations that would stretch for millions of years. So in my opinion “I don’t know” will always be the answer to most of the mysteries yet to be solved. Spirituality or belief in God works off of a different methodology than science. Experience with God is an embedded set of consciousness and unconsciousness that goes beyond the normal boundaries of basic brain function. In other words it’s hard-coded into our genetic makeup according to some studies. I have them copied for re-posting but to be honest I’m too tired to look them up right now. But if you want to read them, I’ll try to get them to you when I can.

          • Al Aquino

            I’m not arguing about the existence of God. Like I stated before there are theistic evolutionist. You can believe In both. All you’ve pushed so far is that God exists and my answer is that has nothing to do with if natural selection is true or false. So tell me why don’t you believe in natural selection and you have to give me more then the universe and God because like I said there are theistic evolutionist.

          • Marvels of life

            That’s true, I’m not one of them. I believe in one, while I am not convinced of the other. Nothing in science has shown me that something from nothing means something. Science is important, but it also is interpretive. That is why there is so much discussion about modifying the model that Darwin proposed. I quote:
            A prominent chemist who was recognized this year as one of the 50 most influential scientists in the world says most scientists do not understand how evolution could explain the existence of life.

            Dr. James Tour is a well-known professor at Rice University, specializing in chemistry, nanoengineering, and computer science. Over the last 30 years, Tour has authored over 500 research publications, and he was recognized as one of “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org. Tour has also received awards and recognitions from the American Chemical Society, Thomson Reuters, Honda, NASA, and others.

            In a video released in late 2012, Tour explained that he has had extensive experience studying the origin of life.

            “I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist,” Tour said, “if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules.”

            Despite his experiences and expertise, Tour admits that he does not understand how evolution could account for life’s existence.

            “I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you,” he says in the video. “Is it okay for me to say, ‘I don’t understand this’? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.”

            However, Tour says he is not the only one who does not understand how life could have arisen through natural, unguided processes.

            “Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science—with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners,” Tour stated. “I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public—because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said—I say, ‘Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?’”

            The answer he inevitably receives, Tour explained, is: “no.”

            “Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go, ‘Uh-uh. Nope.’” Tour said. “And if they’re afraid to say ‘yes,’ they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.”

            Fair says there is an important distinction between microevolution and macroevolution—the former is clearly observable and repeatable, but the latter has never been witnessed.

            “From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution,” he wrote in a blog post. “The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution.”

            After recognizing that evolutionists are “collectively bewildered” by life’s origins, Tour joined nearly 900 other scientists in signing A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, which states: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

            If evolution cannot account for life’s existence, then how did life originate? Tour says the most reasonable answer is simple.

            “I believe fundamentally that God created us all,” he told the Houston Chronicle.

          • Al Aquino

            “Nothing in science has shown me that something from nothing means something”
            Natural selection and evolution isn’t about something form nothing. You keep missing this point.

          • Marvels of life

            I think you would have to talk to Dawkins on that matter. He certainly has addressed the issue of Evolution. When addressing the origins of life there has to be a starting point to Evolutionary process’s. The problem is as I pointed out that some scientist’s of today conclude there is no other conclusion than to see God as the origin of life, and the origin of the Universe. Science claims they don’t know what the origin of life or something from nothing meaning the big bang theory. They simply say the process could have began from meteor’s or other things I find to be erroneous. If your referring to how we evolve through information sharing than your correct. We do evolve in that way. If your saying we evolved from Ape’s I don’t find any conclusive evidence of that whatsoever. So I suppose it depends on your definition of evolving. I’m saying all things are created by God the creator. That seems to be the conclusion I draw from my study. You may draw a different conclusion. That is your conclusion. Do you understand now what I’m saying. If not, define evolution in your context so we can get on the same page. Thanks.

          • Marvels of life

            I am not by any means a scientist. More of a researcher on current scientific models of discovery which I find extremely interesting. My specialty is in doing research. I feel most science today is very interpretive so it’s difficult to come to conclusions because the field is so broad within each method of science.

          • Al Aquino

            See no scientist knows how life started…and that a whole different thing from evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life that a whole different set of theories that the science community is still split over with no theory being accept as the most probable. These theories are lump together as abiogenesis and any scientist will tell you there isn’t enough evidence yet on this subject. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis so its misleading when you lump them together.

          • Marvels of life

            Everyone has a perspective. Intelligent design has its agents of recognition just as your statement of abiogenesis. It’s interesting that more and more scientists are distancing themselves from Darwin in the literal sense. I believe there is much that a man can discover, but a directed fine tuning in the sense that everything had to work together at just the appropriate time, and it continues gives ever more evidence that something other than natural selection is at work. Something intelligent. Even the human body can account for that. Until I see a human being that can create an intelligent life form from nothing, there is nothing more I can conclude than that there is a master planner and creator. That would be God. As an Agnostic I’m sure you’ll need some empirical evidence you find sufficient for you. I wish you the best of luck in finding that evidence, since again my spiritual aspirations cannot be resolved through science, but only through Christ and God. Again, have a great evening.

          • Al Aquino

            I don’t see your point the fine tuning of the universe idea has no bearing on natural selection. Natural selection only applies to once life has started. All fine tuning argues is that the universe was made for life. My friends that are Christian (most catholic or protestant) believe that god made the universe and agree that fine tuning…that all these things that come together can’t be a coincidence but even they know that this doesn’t prove or disprove natural selection that’s why they believe that God made the universe perfect for life and also believe in evolution. Super nova, water, gravity etc. are all perfectly a tune for life but tell me how that gives evidence away from natural selection.
            You keep applying natural selection to things that it isn’t part of. I’m agnostic because I’m not sure on my stance of the existence of God but even if there is a God that designed the universe perfectly it doesn’t take away anything from natural selection. How do you know that the master planner didn’t make all the laws of the universe to include the natural selection?
            So even if God created the universe that’s still not evidence against natural selection. I don’t understand why you seem think evolution and natural selection is just for atheist and agnostics at least that’s how you sound to me.

          • Marvels of life

            I would disagree with you on that. One scientist explains it this way. If we took all of the sand that is on the earth, then she picked up a few grains and continued, and the mechanism’s of the big bang were off by just a finger tip of sand, we would not exist as life, the expansion would not expand but contract back into itself and there would be no universe at all. I believe she is right, and the numbers mathematically support her analogy.

          • Al Aquino

            I’m not saying God didn’t make the universe as that has nothing to do with natural selection. Imagine that I’m a Christian that believes in evolution for a second. This is what I would say “God made the universe perfect we know this cause if gravity were any different life could not exist. He made the laws of the universe perfect for natural selection to work. God in all his wisdom made it so water, gravity, and the forces of nature were just perfect so that evolution could lead to mans coming to be” All your statements about fine tuning also work in this idea.
            Natural selection is only about what happens after life begins that’s it you seem not to understand this point. All your talk about how perfect the universe is for life has no baring on the argument of natural selection.

          • Marvels of life

            Now that is a great statement. I concede about natural selection and applaud this comment. I couldn’t agree more. Thanks for the comment.

          • Al Aquino

            Thank you. I pretty much ripped the quote from my cousin who is a theistic agnostic…he believes that fine tuning and human spirituality proves there is a higher being but he doesn’t believe any of the organized religions. Also if I was rude at any time I apologize.

          • Marvels of life

            Oh no you were not at all. I appreciate your comments. I am a Christian in that I follow Christ. I do have some difficulty with what I call institutionalized religion. My father was a minister, my grandfather, and great grandfather as well. I found that in my case and my brothers case that people sometimes claim to be followers of Christ but then wave their money, try to use it for influence, etc. I don’t want to get on a tangent here about that, but I can say that I’m closer now with Christ, being with my wife, and family (my wife is a very strong believer and I’ve seen amazing things from her prayers) then I have ever been going to a church. That doesn’t mean I don’t pay attention to some ministries. They have their place, I’ve just seen too much “hypocrisy” in church over the years to be able to worship and pray there. I am hoping in some way, you would consider Christ and the value you may have for him. Your quite intelligent, well prepared, and kind, which is not always the case. But I value what your saying, and thank you for saying it.

        • bowie1

          I am a product of the public school system but I have also been brought up with biblical teachings, and realize the implications of the teachings of macroevolution. Microevolution as mentioned by “Marvels of Life” is happening as noted below and is also supported by creationists allowing for variation WITHIN the species.

  • The Lone Ranger

    God has given man freewill to choose how you choose is up to you, you can choose God or you can monkey around. Please choose responsibly!

    • Karl Mamer

      What if you choose the wrong god or the wrong way to worship that god? Are Mormons, Catholics, Jews, and Jehovah’s Witnesses going to heaven in your opinion?

  • The Lone Ranger

    God gives you the equal right to choose eternal life or death, right folks?

    • John Cochran

      No, a non-existent element cannot give something it does not have itself.

  • Haqodeshim

    Evolution fails logically, and in the real world of science too – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ&feature=share&list=FLPWdj_kaI3-GhzsRePZZBog – problem is, science broke off from philosophy which founded it. If you look to the modern era, most famous philosophers were also scientists as well as many famous scientists philosophers.

    In the 20th century science divorced itself from being accountable to philosophy and metaphysics, and began to deal only in physics, but then over reached on metaphysics saying science only could tell you about all the physical world, which is a lie -https://www.facebook.com/notes/george-walter-bratcher-iii/theories-have-limitations-whether-they-are-creationism-or-evolution/10151962262046373

    There is more support for ID right now in the court of logic and science than for evolution -https://www.facebook.com/notes/george-walter-bratcher-iii/the-holographic-universe-and-the-father-of-the-heavenly-lights-/10151421820621373

    British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, has turned his back on atheism, saying it is impossible for evolution to account for the fact that one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

    Read more at -http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/mar/3/20050303-115733-9519r/?page=all

    • getstryker

      Excellent points

    • Karl Mamer

      “Evolution fails logically”

      No. It’s well backed by testable evidence.

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

      What’s the problem with evolution?

      “science only could tell you about all the physical world”

      Kind of. Science addresses testable claims.

      “British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, has turned his back on atheism”

      One can line up atheists who became religious and religious people who became atheists. Basing any argument on an appeal to popularity is a meaningless fallacy.

      Also, Flew is not a Christian. Here. Let me quote him:

      “I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins”

      http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/atheist-believes-in-god/

      But, hey, if you want to claim a guy who thinks your god is a cosmic Saddam Hussein, well, have him.

      • Haqodeshim

        How did NASA going to Mars with the Mariner 10 satellite in the 1973 lead to the formation of the Shroud of Turin Research Project later in 1978? This project in 1978 would attract 38 skeptical American scientists on the team of 40 (with only two Christians), who thought they’d prove it a hoax within a week’s time, but leading to all the scientists, even a Jewish man on the team, all coming to faith in Jesus after 5 days studying the Shroud of Turin.

        3D image – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoZ4D5D_lrI&feature=share&list=PLAE6F3BCB32692FA5&index=3

        Atheism is a movement in decline, has been since the 1970’s. Only reason you hear about it in the news is because enough old rich white baby boomers from the counter culture have money to put into it and into the court rooms. In another 40 years, it will be less relevant than it is now.

        Sin means “without” without God specifically, so when Jesus told a sinner to go and sin no more he was really saying, “Go and be without God no more” (avoid Adam and Eve’s mistake of thinking they could cast conversation with the creator to the wayside).

        In 2004, a particle physicists working independently made a discovery that could change everything we think we know about the world we live in -http://www.itbn.org/index/detail/ec/9sY2VwMjpSFId9Dfz1qzkhita_-jRTPs

        • Karl Mamer

          When did we start talking about the shroud of turin. You made some claims about evolution and I’ve shown you they were incorrect.

          You made a claim about Anthony Flew and I pointed out his “conversion” was not the conversion you seem to think it was. He’s as hostile to christian ideas as ideas of atheists.

          • https://www.youtube.com/user/Mr101VM Haqodeshim

            Georges Henri Joseph Éduard Lemaître(July 17, 1894– June 20, 1966) was a Belgian Roman Catholicpriest, honorary prelate, professor of physics andastronomer at the Université catholique de Louvain. He sometimes used the titleAbbé or Monsignor.

            Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his ‘hypothesis of the primeval atom’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre; see also – “Scientists can’t believe in God? – https://www.facebook.com/notes/george-walter-bratcher-iii/scientists-cant-believe-in-god/10151504977981373).

            Joseph Lemaître, as he is more commonly known, based his work upon his interpretation of the data yielded from Einstein’s”Theory Of Relativity” and yet Einstein did not believe the Universe was expanding, he believed it to be in a static state. He did not accept Lemaître’s conclusions; but later data from telescopes and later satellites would prove indeed the universe was expanding, and it had a point of origin – a beginning – and Lemaître also based this upon his understanding of Genesis.

            Now Stephen Hawking is finding himself in Einstein’s shoes, for his latest theories being studied by other colleagues in his field, have them concluding that the universe is a hologram -http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/07/how-an-argument-with-hawking-suggested-the-universe-is-a-hologram/

            And initial tests are being developed to take this theory and hypothesis and bring it to fact – “World’s Most PreciseClocks Could Reveal Universe Is a Hologram” -http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/holometer-universe-resolution/

            Stephen may very well find himself in Einstein’s shoes not believing what his own theories yield in conclusion, only to later have science prove it. For certain, Stephen Hawking could not have accomplished his work of his lifetime had science rejected Lemaître, and stood behind Einstein instead despite the evidence later tests and research would yield as technology grew.

            Stephen may very well find, there is not real darkness, that everything is made up of energy, but then again Jesus warns that if the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness (http://bible.us/111/mat.6.23.niv), bringing us back to metaphysics as physics must always do and yield in the end.

            If not (physics only wanting to deal with physical existence and not being, hence metaphysics), it winds up sounding arrogant and spoiled, a brat that refuses to talk with the rest of the classmates, simply because he (metaphorically speaking of physics as a science and a physicist as a scientist who is also a student of the observation of space-time) isn’t getting his way.

            But the larger audience of the scientific community, is not stopping to consider, that they already have a 3D quantum hologram here on Earth, that points to the holographic universe Stephen Hawking’s theories are leading to – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbl4EmoH_jg&feature=share&list=PLAE6F3BCB32692FA5

            17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. – James 1 NIV; http://bible.us/111/jas.1.17.niv

            https://www.facebook.com/notes/george-walter-bratcher-iii/the-holographic-universe-and-the-father-of-the-heavenly-lights-/10151421820621373

            Believe in God in 5 Minutes (Scientific Proof) -https://youtu.be/eQVm8RokoBA

            Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with over thirty years of experience in research and teaching. He earned his Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctorate degrees all at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with his doctorate thesis being under the supervision of physics professor Robley D. Evans. This was followed by five years on the staff of the MIT physics department prior to moving to Israel, where he joined the Weizmann Institute of Science and then the Volcani Research Institute, while also having a laboratory at The Hebrew University. His Doctorate is in two fields: Earth sciences and physics.

          • Karl Mamer

            You can keep posting weird, random copy and pastes. But it doesn’t change the fact your claims have been refuted. You might want to address, directly, my refutations of your claims.

          • https://www.youtube.com/user/Mr101VM Haqodeshim

            No my claims have not been refuted. It is science that is coming to the conclusion that the universe is a hologram, which means it is designed.

            What you call evolution is spoken of in Genesis. When God looked upon something created and said, “It was good” the Hebrew translate the adjective in future tense as “being good with the possibility of becoming better” and so animals can adapt to their environments, and if evolution is about survival of the fittest, then why do birds lose the advantage of slight to swim or run and cease to fly? It’s adaptation spoken of in Genesis and not the false conclusions of Darwinian evolution.

            ID trumps evolution, and the proof is in the science you do not want to look at.

          • Karl Mamer

            “No, my claims have not been refuted.”

            Yeah. I did. Here let me walk you through it.

            Your claim: “Evolution fails logically”

            Refutation: It’s backed multiple lines of evidence. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

            Your response: Silence.

            Your claim: “science only could tell you about all the physical world”

            Refutation: Kind of. Science addresses testable claims.

            Your response: Silence.

            Your claim: “British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, has turned his back on atheism”

            Refutation: Yeah. But I wouldn’t call a guy who thinks of the Christian god as a cosmic Saddam Hussein as a conversion to your camp. You should probably look up what Flew actually believes before claiming a guy who is quite hostile to your idea of a harry potter god is some amazing conversion away from atheism.

            Your response: Silence.

            “and if evolution is about survival of the fittest, then why do birds lose the advantage of flight to swim or run and cease to fly?”

            Because those birds are fit for the niche they radiated into. Evolution predicts traits not necessary for survival are more likely to diminish over time. Evolution also works with what it has. Features well evolved for one purpose can be coopted for another purpose, as well.

            Do you even know how evolution defines “survival of the fittest?” I’ve met many creationists who are highly confused by this term, assuming evolution should produce bullet proof squirrels or pigs that can run as fast as cheetahs. Fitness, to an evolutionary biologist, has one simple definition: the organism has passed its genes on to another generation. I can run 8.5 mph for 25 minutes solid. Fat Frank three offices down struggles to breath after walking up 3 stairs. But Fat Frank has had 2 children. I’ve had none. You know who is “fit” in an evolutionary sense? Fat Frank.

            “ID trumps evolution, and the proof is in the science you do not want to look at.”

            I’ve looked at a lot of ID literature. I’m more than happy to look at any positive evidence you have for ID. By positive evidence I do not mean “we can’t explain X therefore my idea wins by default”. Science does not work that way. Science makes predictions. If observations match those predictions, that is positive evidence for the theory.

            So, like I say, I’m happy to look at the ID evidence you find compelling. Why not post the three lines of evidence you find most compelling for ID and I’ll read it and comment on why or why not I find it compelling.

            But, please, no youtube videos. Or, at least, if you want to hand wave to some poorly produced 30 minute youtube video, please identify the time signatures of the three points you find compelling in the video. Because, frankly, I can watch a video and totally miss the things you find compelling.

            Anyway, got the chops for that?

  • MelanieWaffle

    These people sound rude, but I see no problem with the statue if it’s not ta ky. So long as the ten commandments can stay this seems like a non issue.

  • John Cochran

    One of the most ignorant and backward legislatures in the nation can be found doing their damndest in the Oklahoma Capitol. Having allowed private funds to build and erect a Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds several years ago they saw it destroyed recently by a slightly deranged gentleman. I enjoyed watching it lie there just like Jehovah must have busted the originals. Anyway, not capable of letting things remain as they legally should have, the legislature paved the way for a second 10 Commandments monument to be built and erected on the same site. Yes, this is the same legislature who wrote a bill making it illegal to do any type of stem cell research in the state. This is the same legislature that refused to pass a law making it illegal to text and drive (leading to the death of many teens and young adults). This is the legislature that prays at every opportunity yet have been show to be total hypocrites throughout the years. The Governor of the state tried to pass a law taxing solar panels a short while back! If you seek enlightened, progressive, forward thinking leadership, …don’t even think about looking at the Oklahoma legislature! The only thing this sack of clowns has come up with in recent years is a few world class conspiracy theories.

  • Al Aquino

    What this article seems to leave out is that there is already a statue of William Jennings Bryan at the court house. So I don’t see the issue of adding Clarence Darrow. If the claim is that adding a statue promotes anti-theism then having a statue of Bryan promotes christian religion which would be illegal. But the statues of Bryan and Darrow are both fine cause its the history of that court house.

  • jimtoddsays

    This is an interesting place. Kind of like stepping back 4 or 5 centuries in time. I thought those movies about lost worlds where dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures still live were all fantasy, but now I see they are really about current day Tennessee.