I just saw advertised on the History Channel tonight is a show called "The Link" and it will be all about IDA if anyone is interested just tossing it out there.

Sorry, I edited it down to something I could 100% agree with. "Missing link" strikes me as sensational journalism, feeding on and supporting an oversimplified view of evolution.


They know it will anger some people, and they know it will excite some others, and thus will sell more papers/magazines.

No matter which side you choose to believe it would be foolish to not, at least, consider both as possible. Science is not 100% fool proof and based mostly on speculation as creationism is based on a book written by a guy named "Dave". Why does everything always have to be one or the other ,why not both.

Thanks for the heads up.

You make an excellent point. In my mind evolution is pretty much irrefutable. They just keep layering evidence atop more evidence. Its like dropping a pencil and acknowledging gravity at this point. However that does mean that some sort of creator force did not initiate life on this planet and use biological evolution as a mechanism to bring about that result. I see absolutely no conflict there but I guess thats just me. Hopefully its not just me though.

Perhaps instead of there being some sort of "creator force" (or God) maybe the universe itself is intelligent and contains intelligent beings through whom it channels and creates.

My child goes to a Christian school. This year the science teacher told them that there was no such thing as evolution. They skipped that chapter in the science book. He said that it's the way that the devil works. He wanted them to not believe in evolution so God would know that they are Christians.

Hello Deke,

I don't think you have a solid idea as to how science is supposed to work. I think a lot of people mistakenly take the position that evolution does not occur because science has not provided the evidence. This is not what science is supposed to do. One of the major tenants of science is skepticism. Scientists will make observations (e.g. Darwin's observations leading up to "his" theory) and then form an explanation of these observations (i.e. facts), which is theory. It is the scientist's job to disprove theories by making hypotheses and then testing these hypotheses in controlled conditions. The fact that evolution has stood the test of time (i.e. it has not been able to be disproved for over 150 years) is why it has such high standing today.

It is not the job of the scientist to prove something. Rather, it is his or her job to disprove a theory. That is how science works and this is why "facts" are seen differently in the scientfic world than in everday use. "Facts," generally speaking, within the scientific community are unremarkable.

Well said and welcome to the community!

I hope to see more of you.

If I had kids, I don't think I could handle them being in a school like that. It really is an assault on reason. What did you do in response?

Yea I would have been thrilled to have my kid tell me they skipped over that section, someone would have lost a job.

This has been done over and over again, and if administrators and teachers think they can dispense with science based on religious views then we have some open positions that need to be filled.

I started teaching different scientific theories to my child. I showed them the article about Ida and more. Told them that their teacher was wrong. I told my child that people like that are the ones that turn people away from Christianity. I explained how everybody has different opinions about evolution but you can't deny facts.

I have no choice but to send my child to this school. Other then the evolution problem and some other issues, it's an excellent education that is preparing the children for a college prep high school. Also, my city's public schools lost accreditation. I'm big on education for my child.

It is crazy really. I have been trying to wrap my head around religion v science debate lately. I recall a book I had to read in undergrad for a history of science: "When Science and Christianity Meet." The central thesis of the book was that, despite claims to the contrary, science and religion are not inevitably opposed to each other. Rather, we must look at each incident in which science and religion clash and examine the nuances of these incidents. From this examination, it should become apparent that the ostensible clash between science and religion results from personality and egos rather than the claim that science and religion cannot be roconciled.

I am starting to rethink the position of that book as these types of incidents are becoming more common. But now I fear that I am just rambling.

By the way, thanks for the warm welcome!

I'm definitely going to like you! Welcome to the forums!

Humans just don't like to not know. I guess it comes down to whether you need an answer now to get you through life or you are the type that will always be searching. To each their own. We all have to make sense of this world in our own way. We should not pile our views on anyone else but keep an open mind. Ain't that why we love where we live.

I agree. I find many times my answer to something is I don't know, its ok to be uncertain. I feel too often religion has issues with uncertainty.

Yes I agree. Sometimes I feel that people who are strongly opposed to evolutionary theory due to their religious beliefs tend to feel that way about anything that is not 100% defined and spelled out for them. They would much prefer just having a book that professes to have all the answers and that way there is no room for scary ape stuff.

Evidence? Explain how this is since all of the conclusions of what is observed is subjective. Evidence in science is a repeatable, observable fact. Not psuedo-educated guesses. There is infinitely more proof of gravity than ANY conjecture that "evolution science" presumes.