Creationism vs. Evolution

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: safemining1

I find it hypocritical that some atheists who think believing in god is such a "bad thing" or "totally blind faith", and that rational thought is superior or "smarter". Yet, they think theists "push dogma down peoples' throats", or other such things.quote>

There is perhaps a sliver of hypocrisy there.

Thing of it is, there's no such thing as "atheist dogma", or "logic dogma". Dogma is a religious thing.

And besides which, everyone uses logic, religious or not. Religious people just sometimes use it in a different manner and draw different conclusions... which from an atheist perspective would be misuse of logic or false logic. It's fairly easy to poke holes in logic involving supernatural things since logic is not supposed to be applicable to the divine. Logic involving more earthly matters can be much more sound. If you try and use logic to argue in favor of or against the existence of a god, you're not going to get anywhere. If you try and use logic to defend evolution, it's not flawless but it fits pretty well. If you try and use logic to defend "intelligent design" or creationism you'll find holes in it big enough to drive a semi through.

Those things aren't about logic. They're about (blind) faith.

Some people use "blind faith" in a condescending manner, believing it to be stupid to have faith in something without a good reason. And when dealing with earthly matters, it is. Blind faith in a leader is foolish because that leader is only human. Blind faith in a god is more defensible on the basis that god is supposed to be perfect. He won't betray you, you can trust him. Most atheists would scoff at that but if you try and see it from a religious perspective it makes a bit more sense.

On the other hand, atheists do not use theology. Okay, so some atheists will try and misquote scripture and whatnot to attack religion but a proper atheist is tolerant of other people's beliefs and won't do that.

Really, the crazy atheists who go around out spouting hatred of religion and advocating burning churches and whatnot are a minority group, just like any religion has its minority of extremists.

Most of us can be nice people if you just get to know us.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: safemining1

...

I find it hypocritical that some atheists who think believing in god is such a "bad thing" or "totally blind faith", and that rational thought is superior or "smarter". Yet, they think theists "push dogma down peoples' throats", or other such things.

...

quote>

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. I think it follows that someone who doesn't like dogma won't like having someone else's dogma "forced down their throats". 

On another topic, a new fossil turtle has been found in China - a turtle with "half" a shell.

How Did Turtles Get Their Shells? Oldest Known Turtle Fossil, 220 Million Years Old, Give Clues

ScienceDaily (2008-11-27) -- Since the age of dinosaurs, turtles have looked pretty much as they do now with their shells intact, and scientists lacked conclusive evidence to support competing evolutionary theories. Now with the discovery in China of the oldest known turtle fossil, estimated at 220 million years old, scientists have a clearer picture of how the turtle got its shell.

Full article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081126133307.htm

quote>

[pogoboymtk 9]

I think the thing to realize for everyone is that EVERY viewpoint and opinion requires some element of faith to accept or reject because no one is capable of understanding everything about anything. That being said, I have extremely strong faith that 1 + 1 = 2 and that we are in fact living on a planet that revolves around a medium sized star that we call the sun. I have faith in these things based on the observations and conclusions expressed by many, many people throughout history who were wonderful enough to document and pass down this knowledge. The reason I have faith in these things is the simple fact that the concepts within them have been tested thoroughly and proven quite conclusively to be the case. That being said, I also believe that the theory of evolution, although not fully understood yet if ever, has been quite well validated by observation and study.

On the flip side of the coin, religious beliefs like creationism are not based on any observational study. It is for this reason I dismiss the validity of the arguments as religious dogma as opposed to rational belief. It is not rational for human beings to believe in things that have not been observed, but it is in the nature of human mind, which is not good at understanding questions without answers, to find something to fill those voids. The religious leaders of the present have defined this need for understanding as a god inspired need of god. The religious leaders of the past have used this need as a method for political and social control.

I stand up and say that I have faith in the evolutionary theory as being a beginning of understanding as to how we got here. By saying that I disagree wholeheartedly with the creationist viewpoint does not mean that I am an athiest. There are many, many unanswered questions for which we as humans do not have answers yet. That simply means that the answers, for now, have not been discovered yet. Not having all the answers is a pretty good reason for living because there are things to discover and understand. In our own lives, whether religious or not, we are all striving to better ourselves, to evolve our knowledge as we strive to move forward.

My goals in life are that simple. Enjoy life as if every day is my last. Do this by loving and being loved by my family. Do this by making the world my children will inherit even better than the one I did. Do this and I have done my part to improve the species.

[ktxus05 0]

When it comes to Evolution-vs.-Creationism, I believe in the "Hybrid" Theory. That is, I, along with many Christians, believe that God "created" evolution. But I think that as long as many Americans believe in full-blown creationism, it should be taught in schools, alongside evolution that is. After all, before the 19th century, virtually every major scientist believed in creationism. The movie Expeled shows how many evolutionists dismiss creationism at any level, and will do anything they can to get rid of the creationism theory. Drowning out one side of the argument is similar to the ignorance of the middle ages, when only creationism was accepted as fact, and all else was dismissed as heresy. People who wish to fully remove creationism from schools are no better than that.

[astronelson 339]

Natural Selection is undeniable (more obvious/slower animals are eaten first). Random Mutation is also undeniable (we are not all clones).

Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Evolution.

If we accept that the Earth is about 4,500,000,000 years old, and that the earliest forms of life are observable in rocks that date back about 3,700,000,000 years, how is evolution deniable?

post-script: Science is not ruled by popularity. Just because something is believed by most of the population, dosen't make it right. Evidence, and only evidence, can weaken or strengthen a theory.

post-post-script: In the Dover case, it was admitted by the "Intelligent Design" (Creationist, in all but name) side that the definition of science that includes creationism also includes astrology. Astrology is not science, therefore, creationism isn't either.

post-post-post-script: There really isn't much of a debate outside the USA. Most of us foreigners take the amount of evidence for evolution (substantial), weigh it against the evidence for creationism (zilch), and go with the logically better one. I'm only weighing in because debating is fun.

[fukuda 351]

But I think that as long as many Americans believe in full-blown creationism, it should be taught in schools, alongside evolution that is.quote>

A-ha, so if many americans believed in a flat earth it should be taught in school too? Creation is not biology, it has nothing to do in a science class, it could at most be taught in a religion class.

The movie Expeled shows how many evolutionists dismiss creationism at any level, and will do anything they can to get rid of the creationism theory.quote>

There's something called the scientific method and creation is just unable to pass through it, All hypothesis that don't get through are dismissed, not only creation. But it's nice as a victimist argument, isn't it?

Drowning out one side of the argument is similar to the ignorance of the middle ages, when only creationism was accepted as fact, and all else was dismissed as heresy.quote>

Haven't seen many creationists executed for the sake of science lately....

And we all know in which side ignorance is, just read all the arguments in this thread for instance.

[Muck308 55]

Believing in God or a god doesn't mean you have to do so in any traditional sense. There are religions to support just about any approach, but if you believe in a god it doesn't mean you have to accept as fact all the events that have taken place(or supposedly taken place). There may have been a man named Jesus Christ, and he may have been a stand up citizen. He may have had nothing to do with the divine. Or perhaps, he was a she, or he/she never existed at all... or, to push this even further, he/she did exist, but none of the details about his/her life are actually true. One can choose to believe whatever they wish about the events that led up to today and still choose to believe in a god.

And as far as evidence goes, some of the spiritually devout believe they HAVE evidence of the existence of God. To them, a spiritually fulfilling moment or the occurance of something that could be called a miracle, is proof that God exists. Nobody is going to be able to change their mind. As far as they are concerned, their own personal miracle is as strong as any other scientific evidence supporting other views like evolution. So now the word 'evidence' is useless because what is evidence to some is meaningless to others.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[patriots_1228 51]

well, why should we keep creationism if a majority of scientists and teachers don't believe it? It would be like teaching kids that 1+2=5. We no longer go to school for our morals and values, this is not the colonial times. These days, the only reason we go to school is to be successful later on in life. And I don't think getting an A in "AP Sinning and Forgiveness" is going to impress havard..[although Mississippi would be all over that...jk =P]

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 well, why should we keep creationism if a majority of scientists and teachers don't believe it? It would be like teaching kids that 1+2=5. We no longer go to school for our morals and values, this is not the colonial times. These days, the only reason we go to school is to be successful later on in life. And I don't think getting an A in "AP Sinning and Forgiveness" is going to impress havard..[although Mississippi would be all over that...jk =P]quote>

Because the people that decide on curriculum in some places apparently still believe that an explanation based on bronze age mythology is what their kids need to hear most of all.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Because the people that decide on curriculum in some places apparently still believe that an explanation based on bronze age mythology is what their kids need to hear most of all.quote>

Or more like parents don't want their kids to be taught things which contradict their own personal beliefs and therefore give the kids reason to not believe as their parents do.

Brainwashing, in other words.

[fukuda 351]

These days, the only reason we go to school is to be successful later on in life. quote>

I hope that there's still people who likes and pursues knowledge.... School is not only for being succesful in life.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: fukuda

These days, the only reason we go to school is to be successful later on in life. quote>

I hope that there's still people who likes and pursues knowledge.... School is not only for being succesful in life.quote>

...history student checking in here. I'll probably count anything that doesn't involve being an assistant manager at McD's and sleeping in a cardboard box under a bridge as a win.

[Muck308 55]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Or more like parents don't want their kids to be taught things which contradict their own personal beliefs and therefore give the kids reason to not believe as their parents do.

Brainwashing, in other words.quote>

 

Right. But parents differ from one family to the next. By that I mean that parents as an entity responsible for setting rules for their children... not a mother being different from a father as far as beliefs. And from one family to the next, the lines parents draw differ as well. The matter of faith is enormous to most. If you ask me even atheists if I'm not mistaken, due to the fact that a lack there of dictates they way they live their lives. But to my point... with such a big issue at hand it is easier to put off the truth. On a smaller scale, children beleive in Santa Claus until the day, well that they don't anymore. They have a realization and from then on, they are that much less ignorant. This usually happens when a child is too young to have theological questions. But when that day comes, the answers to those questions shouldn't be biased. But like I said, all parents are different and some want to ignore those issues so their child doesn't stray from the flock. Religion shouldn't be a result of ignorance but it most often is with so many.

[DocRorlach 25]

An obvious suggestion springs to mind when reading this debate: proponents of both tides of the argument ought to read one, no: two specific books, both cooperatively written by Ian Steward, Jack Cohen, and - of course - Terry Pratchett. The volumes I refer to are entitled "The Science of Discworld, Vol. I & II". A somewhat unfortunate choice of titles that owe more to marketing than to the content. While they do contain, alternating with analytical chapters, "Discworld Fantasms", it is the far larger disection of science and - primarily in the second volume - belief systems that are of interest here.

The writers do make a very good case for what they see as just another religious belief system: Science. Because for now we might do well to accept Darwin's extrapolations, just as we herethereto accepted the biblical explanations: for lack of a better , more believable, more provable version of how things came about forces our teachers to keep bandying present and past "truths" about.

Just a suggestion, though..

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: ktxus05

... After all, before the 19th century, virtually every major scientist believed in creationism.

...quote>

And this proves what exactly?

Originally posted by: ktxus05

... The movie Expeled shows how many evolutionists dismiss creationism at any level, and will do anything they can to get rid of the creationism theory.

...quote>

Expelled was hardly unbiased, and that's about the best thing I could say about it.

Originally posted by: ktxus05

... Drowning out one side of the argument is similar to the ignorance of the middle ages, when only creationism was accepted as fact, and all else was dismissed as heresy.

...quote>

In the middle ages the drowning tended to be more of the literal kind.

...The movie Expeled shows how many evolutionists dismiss creationism at any level, and will do anything they can to get rid of the creationism theory.

...quote>

In spite of what you hear presented in Expelled, anyone presenting new ideas to science faces difficulties no different to those all scientists face. The problem is that (some) creationists expect science to exempt their ideas from the usual scientific process of scrutiny that every other idea has to go through.

In science,  new findings (ie an exact and concise definition of the idea along with a precise description of the testing methodology and all the evidence and experimental results for them) are submitted for publication to scientific peer reviewed journals. The ideas are then open to critique, discussion and debate among the scientific community, with anyone free to scrutinise the material and conduct and publish there own results and discussion, even if they are in disagreement. If an idea wins scientific consensus, then it may be be adopted as a scientific theory (which is actually a very high honour). Creationists are unwilling to expose their ideas to this scrutiny, but (some) still expect their views to be presented in science class on equal footing to ideas that have been subjected to this scrutiny. This is not acceptable in science.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Oh boy, here we go again.

Both Alfred North Whitehead and J Robert Oppenheimer stressed that modern science was born of a Christian worldview. Whitehead said in his book Science and the Modern World said that Christianity is the mother of science due to "the medieval insistence on the rationality of God".

Dr Malcolm Reeves in his book The Scientific Enterprise and the Christian Faith says, "It was with the rediscovery of the Bible and of its message at the time of the Reformation... that a new impetus came to the development of science. This new impetus, flowing together with all that was best of Greek thinking, was to produce the right mixture to detonate the chain reaction leading to the explosion of knowledge which began at the start of the scientific revolution in the 16th century, and which is proceeding with ever-increasing momentum today."

7 of the 10 scientists who founded the Royal Society of London were Puritans, at a time when they were a tiny minority in England. Stop claiming a false dichotomy between science and religion; there isn't one except in the mind of a nonbeliever. Science, history and theology are not 3 opposing branches of knowledge as some want to believe, but rather 3 ways to view our world; just as length, width, and height are 3 ways to measure an object.

 I challenge the nonbeliever to prove that Creationism violates any law of science, it does not.  Nor is it irrational; in fact Judeo-Christianity brought rationality to an irrational pagan world.

But back to the title topic, I could recommend Wendell Bird's The Origin Of Species Revisited: The Theories of Evolution And Abrupt Appearance, and Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, along with the incomparable Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael Behe. (a note on Behe...if you like Dawkins, be careful. This book really takes it to him on a logical, scientific level. I recommend boning up on biochemistry before attempting this piece of very heavy reading.)

If there seems to be a distance between God and science, it begs the rhetorical question, who moved?

ok, peeps, have at it!

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Both Alfred North Whitehead and J Robert Oppenheimer ... {blah blah} ... with ever-increasing momentum today."quote>

Yes, modern science was pioneered by Christians. Would be hard for it not to have been since back then pretty much everyone was Christian.

The fun part is that it was their own venturing into that territory that would be the downfall of their religion as they knew it. People ventured into science expecting to find deeper understanding of god's work in all its glory... what they instead found was plenty of evidence directly contradicting what the bible said. Charles Darwin had a major crisis of faith over his findings.

Stop claiming a false dichotomy between science and religion; there isn't one except in the mind of a nonbeliever. Science, history and theology are not 3 opposing branches of knowledge as some want to believe, but rather 3 ways to view our world; just as length, width, and height are 3 ways to measure an object. quote>

They are indeed different ways of viewing the world, but comparing them to length and width is a bad example. Length and width are both measured in the same units. Science and theology are much more different than that. It's more like science and theology are two different ways of viewing the world just as tea and beer are two different drinks - except one you drink because it's good for you, the other you drink to get drunk.

I challenge the nonbeliever to prove that Creationism violates any law of science, it does not. quote>

What about that law that says you can't make something from nothing?

Oh riiiiight, god is immune to laws like that. Silly me.

Nor is it irrational; quote>

It's believing what an old book says over what empirical evidence shows.

Yup. Absolutely nothing irrational about that.

in fact Judeo-Christianity brought rationality to an irrational pagan world. quote>

Oh give me a break. It replaced one irrational institution with another.

If there seems to be a distance between God and science, it begs the rhetorical question, who moved? quote>

Neither moved. One replaced the other. Problem is, religion hasn't taken kindly to be replaced and refuses to just shut up and die already. It's illogical. But, well...

Who ever said the human race was logical?

[fukuda 351]

along with the incomparable Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael Behe. (a note on Behe...if you like Dawkins, be careful. This book really takes it to him on a logical, scientific level. I recommend boning up on biochemistry before attempting this piece of very heavy reading.)quote>

 

Yeah yeah, rational and scientific level. There's only a problem, that it causes "irreducible" laughter to biochemists.

The scientific level includes research, building hypothesis and writing scientific articles to be peer reviewed and discussed. The only problem is that he wrote none, there was nothing to prove or to experiment, after all.

As I don't feel like writing a long text about it, I'm linking you to a nice article about it

There is no Evolution vs Creation in the scientific world, there's only such an "argument" in the US, for quite obvious reasons.

Quite interesting that almost all Intelligent Design books and supporters come from the US, isn't it?

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[DocRorlach 25]

While I have to admit that I have not read every argument of this rather elongated and surprisingly elogent debate, I cannot help but wonder about something: Everyone here plays, or has played god at one time or another - it is build into the game. SC4 must be a creationists dream: no evolution at all.

On a more serious note though: how do defenders of he religious theory account for: 

a) other religions? If "the" god created it all, surely the creation of diverse religious thought and beliefs must be part of the greater scheme?

b) the long wait? After all, here surely cannot be any doubt about us having been here, on this planet, for only the briefest of spells, while the rest of the known universe has been around for eons? 

c) the idea of free will? That, by definition, is even younger than the huma race since it requires the articulation of a complex concepts, something humans have acquired only "recently", some say a mere 10,00 years ago.

Besides all this: who created he creator? And what exactly preceded creation?

And as an afterthought: who created these absolutely poignant ads following this discussion? Atheism against the law? - Religion Is Mythology

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Both Alfred North Whitehead and J Robert Oppenheimer ... {blah blah} ... with ever-increasing momentum today."quote>

Yes, modern science was pioneered by Christians. Would be hard for it not to have been since back then pretty much everyone was Christian.

quote>

Oh, you mean the 1940s? Yeah, way back when. Sure.

The fun part is that it was their own venturing into that territory that would be the downfall of their religion as they knew it. People ventured into science expecting to find deeper understanding of god's work in all its glory... what they instead found was plenty of evidence directly contradicting what the bible said. Charles Darwin had a major crisis of faith over his findings.

quote>

What, exactly, about the work of Faraday, Oppenheimer, Lister, Einstein, Newton, Pasteur, Boyle, Babbage, Herschel, Agassiz, Reimann, etc. etc. etc. contradicted the Bible in any way, shape, or form?

Nor is it irrational; quote>

It's believing what an old book says over what empirical evidence shows.

Yup. Absolutely nothing irrational about that.

quote>

Again, what empirical evidence by those outside of an extremely narrow focus, (which evolutionary theory is, compared to science as a whole) contradicts Christianity?  Do you mean Medicine? Anatomy? Chemistry? Quantum Physics even? How about Agricultural sciences? Computer science? You get my point.

in fact Judeo-Christianity brought rationality to an irrational pagan world. quote>

Oh give me a break. It replaced one irrational institution with another. quote>

That is merely opinion, I thought you dealt only with empirical evidence. So much for unbiased analysis.

If there seems to be a distance between God and science, it begs the rhetorical question, who moved? quote>

Neither moved. One replaced the other. Problem is, religion hasn't taken kindly to be replaced and refuses to just shut up and die already. It's illogical. But, well...

Who ever said the human race was logical?quote>

quote>

[Odainsaker 2,134]

@DocRorlach:  At least your ads are poignant...how did I get this?

Err, okay...any Atheist Females or Sexed-up Pantheists out there interesting in some, uh, "testing" of evolution, and Creationism?

Regardless, the Great Turtle swims through the ocean of space and time carrying the World on the back of his strong shell.  "Irrational pagan world"???  Such talk is going to make him dip under the surface in irritation, washing away those riding on his back with Floods.  No, the Great World Turtle doesn't take kindly to being described as placed here to be "saved," either.  Teach the controversy, teach of the Great Turtle carrying the World.

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: Odainsaker @DocRorlach:  At least your ads are poignant...how did I get this?

quote>

 

Odainsaker:  Suspect Small Gods, or probably Offler dropping he dice again.

manticorefan: Science did not start in the 1940's: it started with that ape rolling the stone down the hill and wondering how he could use it to get more food than the big gorrila in the next tree: evolution is not just a theory of species: you did it yourself - all the way from diapers to the ability to use a keyboard. You evolved! You were not created by any being other than our biological parents.

[fukuda 351]

Barbarossa: Where then, is the proof of trans-species evolution? Macroevolution is unproven. It is unsupported by the fossil record. Not microevolution, which is provable, but the actual bone of contention in this discussion. It remains nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of biased observers.quote>

There are loads of evidence of "trans-species" evolution, anatomic, taxonomic, chemical and genetic. oh yes, and the fossil record largely supports it.

But people expects to find some kind of "intermediate forms" when those simply don't exist. Some big structural changes happened, but very sparsely. Evolution (speciation) is mostly formed by little gradual changes that separate populations of the same species and lead to the formation of two different species. So in statistic terms you'll find fossils of intermediate forms showing little noticeable difference (chemical difference being impossible to retrieve from fossils ).

And if microevolution occurs, how is that macroevolution can't occur?

Fukuda: No more interesting than the fact that all of atheism's victims (170 million-plus in just the 20th century alone) are outside the US. And that link does nothing but further confuse the issue without refuting it at all. Strangely, it's arguments seem to almost mirror the ones that drive evolutionists into a froth to begin with. No solid evidence, just vague questions that provide no real answers.quote>

atheism victims? nani?

You can't refute Behe's points because they are fully sophism, that's why they aren't and will never be science.

Funny because evolution provides answers, and yes, experimental results, something that creation is just simply unable to do, because it was built with sophisms to make it knowledge-impervious.

[Cypherus21 0]

The biggest blunders of the atheistic mindset is assuming Creation =/= Evolution. While this isn't true for young earth Creationism, progressive Creationism, Theistic Evolution, Old Earth Creationism, Panentheism, and modern Catholicism all embrace evolution as God's way of ensuring his creation can react to environmental changes - punctuated equilibrium.

Given this, the only difference between theism and atheism is that theists believe an immaterial and eternal sentient energy source created the Heavens, while atheism believes an eternal energy source created the Heavens accidentally. It's not hard to deduce which one is a little more rational given our orderly and complex laws of the universe.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: fukuda

atheism victims? nani?

quote>

I refer to the victims of Nietzsche's philosophical offspring: Stalin, Hitler, and Mao primarily, and Pol Pot et al secondarily. Institutional atheism is many times over the biggest murderer of humanity, far greater than all religious wars in the history of mankind combined (I believe I made this point before, either in this thread or the sister thread about the existence of God). So, I'll digress just a bit before someone cries foul about drifting ever so slightly off-topic.

Branding an entire viewpoint as merely sophism is easy, and a great way for those without an inclination to understand to dodge the issues. It relieves one of the weight of the argument without having to truly wrestle with it. It's alright, I understand that this discussion can get tedious for both sides even without all the typing and whatnot. Just as long as we all remain nice to each other without unnecessary polemics.

I'll duck out for the time being with this:

I challenge any skeptic to find a ten square mile spot on this planet where they can live their lives in peace and safety and decency, where womanhood is honored, where infancy and old age are revered, where they can educate their children, where the Gospel of Jesus Christ has not gone first to prepare the way. If they find such a place, then I would encourage them to emigrate thither, and there proclaim their unbelief. -   James Russell Lowell

[astronelson 339]

Originally posted by: manticorefan What, exactly, about the work of Faraday, Oppenheimer, Lister, Einstein, Newton, Pasteur, Boyle, Babbage, Herschel, Agassiz, Reimann, etc. etc. etc. contradicted the Bible in any way, shape, or form?quote>

 

Maybe not Faraday, et. al., but Bruno, Galileo, Kepler, etc. etc. etc. did. They showed that the earth 1. Orbited the sun, thus, 2. Was not the centre of the universe, and, thus, 3. the sun, moon and stars were not in the "Firmament". Anyway, why do you specifically mention the Bible? Aren't other creation stories equally valid? I thought the whole point of the ID movement was that it somehow wasn't religion.

p.s. Could someone please find me some firmament? I'd like to know what it looks like.