Alert: Illegal Coven has cursed this entry with Satanic curse.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution was revolutionary and groundbreaking. He started out believing in God (search "Early Life"), and theorizing as he went. He came up with a testable hypothesis that has since been self consistently upheld to the extent that the theory has been accepted as PROVEN. As we know, science seeks to prove syllogisms in the form of P -> Q. Creationists (the talking snake people) have an alternative theory that is constantly berated for its paucity of prediction and conjectured lack of testability. It is almost universally observed that the syllogism "IF (there is a) God THEN (our observed environment defined as) Creation (in their theory would exist,)" is implied from the theory. This fails to be testable by tautology. Since Darwin's Theory has "won out," we have a new implied syllogism: "IF Evolution (is true,) THEN there cannot be (a Judeo-Christian) God (such as we see written in the Bible with its rigid genealogical timetable.)" This syllogism is no more testable than that of the Creationist observed a moment ago. To observe proof by exception we can theorize a Deistic God that is not a Biblical construct, but is thoroughly consistent with the theory of Evolution. Where does that leave the Scientist who comes from the Judeo-Christian background? The basis of most scientific study in the last 50 years is arguably: There is no God, Therefore this (any observed testable natural phenomenon) must have happened some other way - let us seek and find that way. This differs substantially from the older basis for scientific study practiced by Newton (embodied in the phrase "so ordered the Universe," - search Google,) that a Judeo-Christian God set in place creation, and instantiated laws that he himself abides under in a self consistent sense - exceptions to the rule being regarded as miraculous. Since God is presumed to operate testably in natural law, the Scientist from the Judeo-Christian background asks, "How did God do this?" This is the source of the current battle for so called "Academic Freedom," embodied in the phrase "Intelligent Design," and sensationalized by the movie "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed." This attitude of assumption has led to a constant badinage of the old argument about God being essentially an absentee landlord. The scientist from the Judeo-Christian background looks at Evolution on "any given Sunday," and simply observes that Evolution appears to be in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This might lead to the conclusion that Darwin was a better scientist than Newton, each having started from the Judeo-Christian background, but Darwin having studied himself out of his erroneous beginnings. In fact, the second law of thermodynamics might even be called into question as lacking in testability, since it is difficult in the extreme to demonstrate a closed system on the planet Earth. It is simply the case that most of our observations derive from measurements made on otherwise open systems. Newton's theories are perpetually re-examined in every undergraduate class of Physics students by repeating the results in a lab environment. The fact that Newton himself believed in God is still remembered by the observation that the quantum construct that harmonizes Gravity (that action essentially without an equal and opposite reaction,) with other effects is generally called "The God Particle." It stands to reason that for Darwin to be better received by the Judeo-Christian community, it would be best to go after them at the very heart of their theory - genealogical dating. If disposable fossils were kept on hand at every University in the country such that every undergraduate class were required to date them on a repeating basis, not only would graduating evolutionary students have a better confidence and appreciation for dating methods and their idiosyncrasies, but the large backlog of undated fossils in back rooms of practically every Museum in the country could reliably be cleared and entered into the fossil record in the pursuit of a uniformly accepted time line. -Note- This piece of work appears to have been written by a starry eyed evolutionist who does not know that dating methods are unreliable, and that many fossils in the backrooms of Museums do not fit ANY evolutionary time line. One important concept in dating is to ask "How much of the (radio active decaying stuff) are we actually starting with?" Another standard assumption is that re-heating rock re-starts the timer from zero (if I recall correctly.)

Subject line changed 12/20/08 approx 1400 hrs to read "Alert: Illegal Coven has cursed this entry with Satanic curse."