And Humans think they're smart...

Rick Moran over at Rightwing Nuthouse has a followup to his previous evolution post.

"First of all, let me apologize to regular readers of this site who might have disagreed with me in this debate. It’s just that being called “ignorant” or “close minded” with regards to an unproven, unpublished, non-peer reviewed, and discredited concept gets under my sometimes rather thin skin.

If I went out of bounds (and I did), I’m sorry."

Although to Rick's assertion that IE is "unproven", "unpublished" "non-peer reviewed", and "discredited", is clearly not academically honest and an afront to hundreds of learned creationist (scientists and biologists) who have the same academic qualifiers as those in the "evolution" side of the house - I think that takes it further out of bounds. One could say the same about evolutionary concepts which have been revised, discounted, re-visited, etc, over the last 150 years - and light years from the simple concept that Darwin (who was not a scientist, but a minister) presented. Yet, I agree that this argument could go on and on, and indeed it will. It is an important argument for it goes to the heart of moral relativism and other core issues. In fact, many consider naturalism as a "religion" to those who refute the existance of a "Higher Being" in favor of "Mother Nature".

Therefore this debate I hope will move out of the realm of the sophomoric name calling (on both sides), and enter into intelligent discussion. I have many friends on the "other side of the fence" on this issue and we have delighful discussions and sometime (gasp!) learn from each other.

I still enjoy Rick's posts and articles and will continue to do so. We can agree to disagree, and that's what America is all about.

I do have to admit this whole "Evolution vs. Creationism" discussion flooding blogs everywhere is exciting. In the early days of the internet (1991?), I participated in many, many debates, on this subject on the old newsreader boards (remember them?). So it's good to see people discussing it again. That is when you get past the mudslinging and name calling that those who are out of facts resort to. I've got no time for that sort of discussion.

Quite frankly, I cannot understand how people feel so threaten by ideas different from their own. Yet I find it interesting the "devilish anger" that some people exhibt whenever God or Christianity or Creationism is mentioned. Or as some have called us "loons" or "morons". I think it was the Bible that said, "The fool says in his heart there is no God" Which makes sense to me, because only a fool would say something like that. But that's not my purpose here to argue who is a fool and who is not.

In any case...just for those interested:

Moody Bible institute put out a video a long time ago which is a classic example for the argument of the science of creationism.

Titled "City of the Bees". It explores the native habitate and habits of bees within the hive.

Here are a few facts from the film:

"Consider, for instance, the social conduct of these little insects. A swarm of bees may consist of more than 50,000 individual insects. Their laboring efforts are skillfully divided among three classes. The Queen, at the appropriate season, lays the eggs - thousands of them - which hatch in just three days. The Drones (males) have one function - to mate with the queen. The Workers do a variety of chores; they tend to the young, build the comb, gather pollen and nectar, protect the colony, etc. They literally work themselves to death, living only about six weeks in the summer, but a bit longer in the winter.

Bees, along with other social insects (e.g., ants, wasps, and termites), have baffled scientists for a long time. Each individual within the colony appears to have its own purpose, and yet, the group is a highly organized entity, functioning as a unit. What (Who) has orchestrated these communities of cooperative creatures? The Bible student knows the answer to that query; the skeptic does not."

One might also read this report on the wonders of a 'simple' Bee Hive.

If one can read these things and find a an argument that anything except an "intelligent design" and not random happen chance, I'd be interested in hearing it.