1. Comment #23893 by Mr. Mark on March 3, 2007 at 12:40 pm

"There has never been any proof offered that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct," he said.

Of course, Darwin's is A theory of evolution, not THE theory.

As far as proof - how many weeks of discovery evidence does the guy want?

Other Comments by Mr. Mark

2. Comment #23898 by pauliej on March 3, 2007 at 12:54 pm

If I was the Education Commissioner, I think my answer would go something like this :

It is certain beyond all reasonable doubt that both the universe and life have evolved into their present states from simpler states over billions of years. Whether those processes of evolution were initiated by a supreme being is a question which science is not equipped to answer. Therefore, any theory or hypothesis which postulates the existence of a supreme being is inherently non-scientific, and so has no place in a science curriculum.

Other Comments by pauliej

3. Comment #23899 by karlJ on March 3, 2007 at 1:09 pm

This is really scary!!

The folly of American leaders never cease to astonish me!

One can only hope that this figure do not reach any level of real influence. Though you may argue that it is not probable that this character will ever reach a level of real influence as long as he does not conform to the business standards that drives the Americas, it doesn't feel real safe.

If this caracter ever reaches to a certain level of influence it may very well be the most dangerous threat the world has seen so far.

On the bright side, he is asking a question that can actually be processed in the context of science, though he might not like the anwer.


Other Comments by karlJ

4. Comment #23903 by marklennox on March 3, 2007 at 1:29 pm

"It is certain beyond all reasonable doubt that both the universe and life have evolved into their present states from simpler states over billions of years. Whether those processes of evolution were initiated by a supreme being is a question which science is not equipped to answer. Therefore, any theory or hypothesis which postulates the existence of a supreme being is inherently non-scientific, and so has no place in a science curriculum."

Nail on the head!! Brilliant :D

Other Comments by marklennox

5. Comment #23906 by PaulJ on March 3, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Where do they get the idea that facts can be legislated?

Whether the theory of evolution is the most useful explanation for diversity of species isn't something that can be 'declared.' It stands, or not, on the evidence. Evidence isn't subject to legislation.

Other Comments by PaulJ

6. Comment #23909 by The author on March 3, 2007 at 1:49 pm

I'm momentarily reading a bit of science history and the following will propably interest you:

"John Thomas Scopes was convicted and fined, not for teaching evolution in itself, but for his presentation of Darwin's views on the descent of humanity", as Dr. Kutschera wrote in "Evolution was fine, just not in the case of humans" Nature/Vol137/13 OCTOBER 2005

Other Comments by The author

7. Comment #23913 by ebugogo on March 3, 2007 at 2:04 pm

If I could take the liberty to add a little to the post by pauliej please;
If I was the Education Commissioner, I think my answer would go something like this :

It is certain beyond all reasonable doubt that both the universe and life have evolved into their present states from simpler states over billions of years. Whether those processes of evolution were initiated by a supreme being(or a pink unicorn, or a flying spaghetti monster etc.) is a question which science is not equipped to answer. Therefore, any theory or hypothesis which postulates the existence of a supreme being is inherently non-scientific, and so has no place in a science curriculum.

Other Comments by ebugogo

8. Comment #23917 by brandan on March 3, 2007 at 2:25 pm

isn't this sort of an either/or fallacy? she has to answer yes or no, though she has other options available?

Other Comments by brandan

9. Comment #23918 by Vadjong on March 3, 2007 at 2:28 pm

The celestial teapot argument as blackmail. You can't proof the non-existence of X, ergo anything else I say goes.
Never heard the story about the Babelfish either, I guess.

Why not say to Finney (&co.): 'Okay, I see the truth now, you convinced me that your brain could not possibly be the product of any evolution.'
Not demanding him to do anything, just giving an opportunity to say, 'You're right. There is no evolution.' ;-)

Another thought : If he can proof the bible was not written by Satan, he can teach ID all he likes. (If he says yes, Satan does not exist, so neither does God. If he can't proof it, the bible must be considered evil beyond words.)

Other Comments by Vadjong

10. Comment #23919 by Linda on March 3, 2007 at 2:29 pm

Conservapedia to upstage Wikipedia

The US religious right is so desperate to maintain the hold it has on Americans who willingly submit to living in a state of perpetual fear of the unknown that they have created a new disinformation site.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2024724,00.html

We just can't make this stuff up folks. It is too easy for comedy writers to take a poke at the clearly delusional and insane. The tragedy is that children suffer from bad education.

On the subject of Dinosaurs
Wikipedia:-
"Vertebrate animals that dominated terrestrial ecosystems for over 160m years, first appearing approximately 230m years ago."

Conservapedia
"They are mentioned in numerous places throughout the Good Book. For example, the behemoth in Job and the leviathan in Isaiah are almost certainly references to dinosaurs."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur

Kangaroo origins: "According to the origins model used by creation scientists, modern kangaroos, like all modern animals, originated in the Middle East[1] and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic."

http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo

"Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian "C.E." instead of "A.D.", which Conservapedia uses. Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

What is to be done?

I bet the Alabama high school students were praying like crazy the other day asking God to let them live and make the tornado pass them by. Did he turn his cell phone off or forget to charge the battery and just didn't hear their prayers?

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@306.61gtbkAhg4k.2@.775e799f/154

Other Comments by Linda

11. Comment #23923 by Quine on March 3, 2007 at 2:40 pm

The philosopher, Mortimer Adler, came up with a lovely proof for the existence of a supreme being. It goes like this: line up all the beings in the universe such that for each pair the greater is standing on the left side; there must, then, be a being on the far left end of the line, and that is the supreme being. QED

Of course, you have to have a set of metrics for what constitutes one being being greater than the next. If you go by shear size, the supreme being here on earth would be (to our current knowledge) the giant fungus found in the US state of Oregon (see: http://www.factmonster.com/spot/fungus1.html ). However, I think we should consider that although, by Adler's proof there is a supreme being, who that being is at any moment may be changing rapidly. Given the billions of worlds out there that could have beings, and the vast offsets in development time, the positions in that cosmic lineup could be changing at a feverish rate. So, the holder of that prime far left slot may only be there for a few microseconds at a time. If that is the case, the faithful should concentrate on a rapid sequence of very short prayers to increase the odds that the current supreme being will hear the entire petition.

Other Comments by Quine

12. Comment #23926 by Mikado on March 3, 2007 at 2:57 pm

"Finney, a retired physician" So this person have spent his work life taking money from people for something that could have been fixed by a prayer.

Other Comments by Mikado

13. Comment #23929 by Bremas on March 3, 2007 at 3:14 pm

"There has never been any proof offered that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct," he said.

Apparently not.

Other Comments by Bremas

14. Comment #23930 by Bremas on March 3, 2007 at 3:23 pm

I lived in Nashville for 3yrs during the 90s. There is a church on every street corner. Nothing that happens there surprises me anymore.

Other Comments by Bremas

15. Comment #23932 by LeoVII on March 3, 2007 at 3:31 pm

I'm new to this site, and in error I initially sent my following comments directly to pauliej, whose words prompted my writing. I post them here now because I think they merit a wider distribution:

RE: If I was (sic) the Education Commissioner

You state: "Whether those processes of evolution were initiated by a supreme being is a question which science is not equipped to answer. Therefore, any theory or hypothesis which postulates the existence of a supreme being is inherently non-scientific, and so has no place in a science curriculum."

Your notions of science and what it can and cannot do are entirely nonsensical. Science is nothing more than the gathering of knowledge on the basis of a few rickety rules, and of frequent and occasionally embarrassing revisions to said knowledge.

Science handily embraces the notion of "the big bang," a dimensionless singularity in a time of no time and a space of no space, from which sprang time and space and all existence. So what's your problem with science tackling the question of what was there in the instant before? Tackling the question of an intelligent causative agent?

Science is the acquisition of knowledge, no matter how tentative, not a cordon of silly-ass policemen stomping around the ED issue, barking at all and sundry, "Nothing to see here! Move along now!"

Your problem is that you're stuck in the anthropomorphic, clinging to — while rejecting — the notion of a supreme "being." Only religious hicks on the side of intelligent design espouse the simplistic and primitive idea of a supreme, all-knowing anything. Those with any intelligence stick to the issue of whether our physical universe bespeaks unmistakably of intelligent design.

And it does. No question. Some Hindu sage or other, of perhaps 5,000 years ago, said it best of, essentially, ID (though he used another term, and I paraphrase inadequately): "It is beyond all knowing. No mind can comprehend it, no thought can conceive it, no word can express it."

At least you can be generous enough to let science have a try.

Other Comments by LeoVII

16. Comment #23955 by Scramble on March 3, 2007 at 6:13 pm

Talking of Conservapedia, has anyone checked it out? It is so parochial, it beggars belief! Do they really imagine everyone speaks and spells American? Is everyone in the whole world Christian? This site panders only to the middle-American view, and regards anyone else as, perhaps, imaginary :-)
I wanted to edit the section on CE/BCE, so I clicked on "Login/Create Account", but found there was no way of actually creating an account, only to login with an existing account - perhaps these are only given to friends of the webmaster. With no access to edit/correct entries, Conservapedia have demonstrated their true nature. Narrow, bigoted and closed to scary views and ideas outside the conservative, middle-America, Christian-Right (I did notice that their entry for Jesus neglects to say he was Jewish! :-)). I guess folks get the 'pedia they deserve, although it scares me that parents and teachers may point children to this site, fearing they may become 'polluted' by reality. So sad!
Oh, by the way, check out this slip-up on their Jesus page. You would have expected them, of all people, to know better! :-)
"...the name Jesus almost always refers specifically to Jesus of Nazareth, believed by Christian followers to be God's dad..." Ha! even a heathen like myself spotted this right away - I guess the truely religious never actually bother to READ!!!

Other Comments by Scramble

17. Comment #23957 by Linda on March 3, 2007 at 6:30 pm

This entry is funny too:-
"Bill Clinton managed to serve two terms without botching the prosecution of two wars, manipulating intelligence, engaging in a systematic program of torture, or mishandling the federal response to flooding of a major American city. Obviously, he is the devil incarnate."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Bill_Clinton

Other Comments by Linda

18. Comment #23958 by Robert Maynard on March 3, 2007 at 6:38 pm

But Leo.. the proposition that the Universe suggests it has been intelligently designed by a creator, needs to be framed as a theory to begin being scientific. It needs to make predictions, based on the observation of facts, and it needs to be falsifiable.

The problem is, whenever we might try to make predictions about what to expect from an intelligently designed universe, we are confronted with the question "How can we formulate predictions about the motive and skill of a designer which is necessarily infinitely more intelligent than ourselves?"
We can't even begin to make predictions regarding the extent of a designers responsibility. Did it just set universal constants? Did it only kick start the Big Bang, or create all of the energy? Did it design the algorithmic evolutionary processes that produce complex things out of simple things? Did it hardwire the direct course of evolution? Or did it, in fact, create the Universe roughly as it exists right now, 6000 years ago, and create all modern animals as they exist today?
While evolution has been used to predict (by way of the fossil record) what kinds of animals we should expect to find in between two other kinds, and often has, what could we predict by way of intelligent design? What could we look for? Again, we can't say something like "If the world is intelligently designed, we should expect to find.." because we have no justification for why can expect certain things, because we have no inkling as to the motives or grand designs of the Designer. We can't expect everything to be perfect, because current observations already rule that out. So what's the criteria? About as good as we can get is the prediction, "In an intelligently designed world, things should be pretty awesome."
What's that? They are? Oh, great! So it's designed! ..R-right?

There's no way to pin something so impossible to comprehend, define, observe, or measure the effects of, down!! This is the root of the concepts unscientific nature.

When the properties of a Designer, existing outside of the Universe, are so vaguely defined, it can literally be used to explain away anything. It is not falsifiable, in other words there is no amount of evidence that could rule it out as a theory, so again, it's not a viable model for analysing facts.

For example, we cannot point to something as simple as our appendix (an evolutionary artifact which is absolutely, completely, utterly, irretrievably USELESS) and say "well, that's not intelligent"
The ID theorist might say, "Who are we to question the Purpose of the appendix. Just because it serves no biological purpose, and can get infected and kill you, doesn't mean it wasn't put there for a reason. You just don't know what it is, and you never will, because the Designer is.." - to quote that Hindu sage - "beyond all knowing." or the role of the designer could simple be retracted to a philosophical juncture: "The architect doesn't drive in all the nails. The Designer is responsible for the big picture. Don't waste our time with pithy details."

What would be necessary to rule out Intelligent Design? Can you think of anything? Again, even if we were working under the paradigm of a designed universe, and our astronomers found something in space that was somehow catastrophically silly (I can't even come up with an example), we couldn't use this to falsify it because again, the Designer is "beyond all knowing". We'd never be able to escape from the justification that "Designer knows best," so we'd never be able to rule it out as a theory.

I really have to say, you kinda shot yourself in the foot by saying Intelligent Design can be scientifically explored, and then quoting a proponent of the old design perspective basically saying "Yeah, you'll never understand it. It's beyond knowing."
To paraphrase the sage in another way: It is not something science (literally, disciplines of "knowing") can hope to explore. It's not a testable hypothesis, it's not a theory, it's not science, and it never will be.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

19. Comment #23959 by Arcturus on March 3, 2007 at 6:49 pm

Conservapedia:
Roughly 45% of the United States are Young Earth Creationists and this number has stayed roughly constant for the last 20 years.
-----


As long as christian moderates don't take on these people, Prof Dawkins' stance is the only way. It's their mess, they should clean it or take the brunt of the criticism.

Other Comments by Arcturus

20. Comment #23962 by MelM on March 3, 2007 at 7:00 pm

Things are heating up today.

"The limits of tolerance" Blog post by Mike Dunsford in support of PZ Myers
http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/03/the_limits_of_tolerance.php

Dunsford:
Support for PZ's "screw the polite words and careful rhetoric" policy does display a type of intolerance toward the strategies and tactics used by the ID movement. That is a bad thing if and only if those strategies and tactics are something that people should tolerate. Anyone who thinks that we should tolerate the strategies employed by the anti-evolutionists should think about what they are asking of us.

Dunsford includes two quotes from PZ Myers that made me both cheer and cry. I'll just quote pieces here.

PZ Myers:
All across the country, we have these lunatics trying to stuff pseudoscientific religious garbage into our schools and museums and zoos.

This is insane.

Please don't try to tell me that you object to the tone of our complaints. Our only problem is that we aren't martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.

PZ Myers:
I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots. If you don't care enough for the truth to fight for it, then get out of the way.

One should not be tolerant of brazen irrationality. Three cheers for PZ!!!

Other Comments by MelM

21. Comment #23966 by TIKI AL on March 3, 2007 at 7:28 pm

A Sunday drive thru any trailer park in the good senator's district 8, Blount co.,Tenn. should put to rest once and for all any possibility of intelligent design.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

22. Comment #23969 by scottishgeologist on March 3, 2007 at 8:00 pm

Yup, I go with the PZ stuff. It fits with Dawkins "time to get angry" We've had enough of this lame crap. Time to stop being so polite, so deferential. F*ck religion and all its manifestations. This story shows clearly what a bunch of wank it really is.

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

23. Comment #23970 by mithraman on March 3, 2007 at 8:25 pm

O most high and mighty Tennessee state education commissioner. I have journeyed far to obtain your great knowledge. Surely you can lift the burden of this great question from my soul. I beg of you, please tell me now. I can bear it no longer...
Really, where is Elvis?

Other Comments by mithraman

24. Comment #23973 by k1mgy on March 3, 2007 at 9:08 pm

Is it that these idiots sit idle for months and then - quite spontaneously - get a grand idea such as this? Or is there a much wider plan with Finney's little idea representing one speck?

Fact is they just don't give up. These buffoons keep trying with new angles to turn our free and secular nation into a religious state.

"Freedom isn't free" is often put against those who would criticize the US's Great Leader and his world domination/destruction plan. It better applies to the work that those of us who love America must continually do to keep it truly free.

Numbskulls like Finney need to be swiftly run out of town, or at a minimum re-educated as to the foundational basics of the nation which he signed on to "preserve and protect".

Other Comments by k1mgy

25. Comment #23976 by Shuggy on March 3, 2007 at 9:51 pm

Conservapedia is so bad it's funny. Even the name is backwards: it is a Wiki but not an encyclopaedia, so it should be called Wikiservative.

On the Talk Jesus page, the only entry is someone questioning that anyone denies Jesus' historicity.

Other Comments by Shuggy

26. Comment #23977 by Bremas on March 3, 2007 at 10:20 pm

Okay, someone is definitely screwing with Conservapedia. This line is from the jesus page:

"Jesus of Nazareth, believed by Christian followers to be God's dad, who came to earth as a human c 2 AD. However, God has recently revealed on His blog that Jesus is actually His nephew, not His son."

http://www.conservapedia.com/Jesus

Other Comments by Bremas

27. Comment #23980 by ao9news on March 3, 2007 at 11:44 pm

That's pretty funny. Have you checked out the link of the blog that references it? He (God) quotes Dawkins's description of him in The God Delusion and then proceeds to blog:

"Besides, since I'm God, I'm above the rules of morality. If anyone else endorses slavery, the stoning to death of gays, the selling of one's daughters into prostitution, racism, infanticide, filicide, or genocide, it's wrong. If I do it, I work in mysterious ways™.

There are some other funny bits.

Other Comments by ao9news

28. Comment #23982 by stuartM02 on March 4, 2007 at 2:08 am

Check out www.conservapedia.com/athism - its pretty good. Getting much humour and mild depression from navigating this new find.

Other Comments by stuartM02

29. Comment #23985 by iwentdowntotheriver on March 4, 2007 at 2:27 am

Just for those who mentioned Conservapedia, I checked it out and was not surprised at the tosh I was reading untill I found the following article:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism

At this date, it is quite restrained and I have few disagreements with it. Either an Atheist snuck in and wrote it, or Christian Fundamentalists have suddenly started to listen to what we're all about.

Other Comments by iwentdowntotheriver

30. Comment #23986 by AbstractMonkey on March 4, 2007 at 2:35 am

Typical of this lot. What they cannot pursuade one of, they enforce by law.

The bible belt authorities did once, apparently, try to legislate that the math constant Pi was equal to 3 because thats what the bible said. I don't think it actually made it into law, but I could be wrong..

W.r.t conservapedia, on the Jesus page, they propagate a myth about Flavius Josephus, and his mentioning of Jesus - I read a while ago that copies of his work before the fourth century show no trace of these passages, and that they were suspected to have been added later by Eusebius. Anyone else know if this is true?

Other Comments by AbstractMonkey

31. Comment #23999 by hcholm on March 4, 2007 at 4:40 am

Have a look at the article revisions in Conservapedia, that can be great fun! To see the revisions, click the "history" tab. To start at the beginning, either 1) click on the article date and the on the tiny "(diff)" link, or 2) select the two first articles and then the "Compare selected versions" button. Then you can see further edits by clicking "next diff".

Some articles, like the Jesus and Atheism articles have comments that can be hilarious (both intended an unintended). Starting points:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=next&oldid=1645
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=13836&oldid=13739

These were edited out:

"Since atheists have no God and therefore no grounds for a system of morality, they live their lives according to the rule that "anything goes". In recent years, this has led to a large rise in drug use, pre-marital sex, teenage pregnancy, pedophilia and bestiality, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together and mass hysteria."

"Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene and they had kids. Also, he was a bit gay."

"Jesus is one of the three Gods of the Christian faith, the others are The Father and the Holy Spirit, but Jesus is the most popular. Catholics have many more gods, called saints, but most real Christians believe that Catholics are evil and will burn in hell."

"Historical context indicates that as a 'rabbi' in judea, Jesus would have been married. An explaination for his lack of a wife may be that he was one of the most well-known homosexuals in history. He has been referred to as the first gay-rights activist in history, and had twelve men to fufill all of his sexual needs."

But how do I create an account on Conservapedia?

Other Comments by hcholm

32. Comment #24029 by Matty Two-Tone on March 4, 2007 at 11:18 am

I think they got hip to the wiki-vandalism because they no longer allow registration of new accounts and they've edited out all the funny bits.

Other Comments by Matty Two-Tone

33. Comment #24095 by neander on March 4, 2007 at 7:05 pm

"The lunatics are at the gate." thus, or like it, goes the Pink Floyd lyric. But in reality, they're already in control!

Other Comments by neander

34. Comment #24100 by justme on March 4, 2007 at 7:42 pm

pauliej: "It is certain beyond all reasonable doubt that both the universe and life have evolved into their present states from simpler states over billions of years. Whether those processes of evolution were initiated by a supreme being is a question which science is not equipped to answer. Therefore, any theory or hypothesis which postulates the existence of a supreme being is inherently non-scientific, and so has no place in a science curriculum."

I'd answer like this (changes/additions _underlined_);

"It is certain beyond all reasonable doubt that both the universe and life have evolved into their present states from _earlier_ states over billions of years. Whether those processes of evolution were initiated by a supreme being is a question which science _does_not_concern_itself_with_ _as_the_involvement_of_such_a_being_ _does_not_yield_results_ _that_can_be_examined_and_reviewed_rigorously_. Therefore, any theory or hypothesis which postulates the existence of a supreme being is inherently _not_in_the_field_of_science_ but is _theology_, and so has no place in a science curriculum."

That said, what do theologists do?

Other Comments by justme

35. Comment #24227 by Eventhorizon on March 5, 2007 at 11:53 am

Wow! The knots some people will tie themselves up in because they simply cannot bare to think for a second that a supreme being doesnt exist and that the world he supposedly made may not actually revolve around them.

It also occurs to me that these people cant just be religious and believe in a God but need to be seen by other people to believe in a God. They are of course really just trying to convince themselves. "Dont think even for a second that we're all just living on a big ball thats floating somewhere in space. Now shut-up conscience and think about God". Denial by the bucketload here! Also in America there seems to be a real fear of accusations of atheism and I think this over-zelousness is a symptom of this. The episode of The Simpsons where they parody the Salem Witch Trials springs to mind.

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

36. Comment #24242 by adamhaar on March 5, 2007 at 1:24 pm

The whole question seems pointless, as a simple answer will prove nothing. An intelligent designer of the universe doesn't rule out evolution. Some 'god' or other could have created the universe with a big bang, just right for us to evolve as we have, and then left us all alone.

Even if evolution as we understand it is not correct, it still doesn't prove the biblical book of Genesis nor any intelligent design.

Does Finney think that all creation stories ought to be taught in science? Or just his own beliefs? The Norse and Greek stories are interesting enough. What criteria does he think should be used to determine what is taught?

Speculation of what/which/if some undetectable god might have done can be called philosophy, but not science.

Other Comments by adamhaar

37. Comment #24398 by Old Coppernose on March 6, 2007 at 12:04 pm

The philosopher, Mortimer Adler, came up with a lovely proof for the existence of a supreme being. It goes like this: line up all the beings in the universe such that for each pair the greater is standing on the left side; there must, then, be a being on the far left end of the line, and that is the supreme being. QED

This is just a simple expression of Anselm's Ontological Proof of God, referred to in TGD.

When expressed like this, imo it works quite well as a proof of the non-existence of God. What is the Supreme Number? There isnt one. There is no "far left" of the line - to any number one can add one to it. OF course, this version speaks only of "beings" and there might be (and in fact probably is) only a finite number of things that one can call "beings" but then one might find the Supreme Being is the fungus, as you say. Also God is supposed to be infinite - in which case not comparable to finite beings.

Other Comments by Old Coppernose

38. Comment #24461 by MelM on March 6, 2007 at 7:00 pm

Lana Seivers can show the senators this position statement from NSTA (National Science Teachers Association). It's quite remarkable.
http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=10

Other Comments by MelM

39. Comment #24462 by nrvous on March 6, 2007 at 7:10 pm

QED

Quite Erroneous Deduction?

Of course that argument only works if you have a working definition of 'greater' that everyone can agree on. If you're not careful, your supreme being might end up looking a hell of a lot like a blue whale.

Other Comments by nrvous

40. Comment #111157 by benji on January 13, 2008 at 7:07 pm

Conservapedia...

As a blogger said brilliantly about the so famous creation museum...

what a load of horseshit! They've build a "free encyclopedia" just to gather all the horseshit they could at the same place on the internet! And they love that horseshit!

I think the same of this as he thinks of that :

http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=121

Other Comments by benji