I think that we can all agree that the person most likely to be forgotten in this article is Malcolm Gladwell.

I don't really care about 10 or 15 years from now. I would however, like to play it now. Unfortunately, I can't because the authentication servers are down.

They were down last night. I got to play a little before I left for work. But that's it.

The ridicule was not because Palin said that she could see Russia from certain parts of Alaska, it was that she was offering that up as a rationale of why she had foreign policy experience.

It's not even that the Left or the Right believe lies that are repeated enough... anyone will believe whatever supports their own view of the world.

"I do not recall" works really well for politicians. Why couldn't it work here?

Of course this has nothing to do with the anti science movement that took over when W was in office and is still a matter of fact for half the population.

Half the american public are against "intellectuals", against evolution, deny climate change and think that investing in science is against God or is far to great a burden on the economy and you're surprised at this?

I agree as I'm a lifelong martial artist as well... but I will also say that knowing something tends to be much better than the majority of people out there who know nothing.

And I've worked a lot in the IT industry, I would argue that the same is true there.

Interesting. A lot of people saying "you're an idiot" or "you're stupid" for bringing faith into the conversation. Ad hominem attacks add nothing to the conversation. Especially because I have not attacked science or the scientific method in anyway. Using personal insults only serve to weaken your position.

I'm actually trying to understand the (incorrect) view point of many religious people talking about faith in science. Particularly about evolution.

I agree with the analysis that I have incorrectly used the word faith here. I'm actually arguing from a point of view that I don't believe. My original intent was to point out that the only things that can be considered hard fact are things that have already occurred.

That drawing my next breath is fact... well... if you think about it, that's is not fact. I could die in the middle of this sentence.

When I said faith, what I really mean is truth. There is a difference between truth and fact. The problem is that religion requires no facts to determine truth whereas science is truth based on fact. But truth is not the same as fact and treating it so can be incredibly dangerous (from any side).

Also, one of the predominant aspects of the theory of evolution is that speciation occurs because of geographical separation from the "ancestral species". If you can agree on small "adaptations" can you also see that many of these small adaptations to environments can lead to complete changes in physiology? Say, if a mountain appeared (due to tectonic shift or eruption) and land locked a section of water... and then the fish species within that lake, in order to get food, "adapted" a way to breathe air some of the time and got food from the land surrounding it. And then because that was the species that was best able to survive and not starve to death ended up spending more and more time on land, that some elements of the population mutated stronger fins... that those would be even better suited to get food on land... until after generations (as the original lake dried out) it because a land walking species that bore little resemblance to the original species that didn't get land locked?

I disagree with people who say it's the "only" possibility. But it's currently our best explanation.

The flying fish is a great example of something that arose (it's still a fish) and is on the way to become something else.

Indeed. If I drop rocks a 1000 times and then drop a coin 1000 times and then something else over and over again. I might conclude that dropping ANYTHING will make it fall to the ground.

But that is not a fact, dropping a helium balloon will not drop to the ground. So my theory that dropping anything will make it fall to the ground is wrong. That's exactly why it's a theory. That's why we explore it further instead of throwing the whole thing away and then discover things like atmospheric pressure and density.

If we drop rocks into the water and they always sink to the bottom. We might conclude that all rocks sink in water... but that would also be wrong. We need to redefine what a rock is (yes, there are rocks that can float).

My point is, we take it on faith that things will work out based on our theory. It is entirely possible (in the case of evolution, the new arsenic based life form) that something will come along and show us that our theory is incomplete. Unfortunately, many people tend to take that to mean that "it is wrong".

"We can see evidence of evolution within our own genome" I said, sorry... I should give you an example. Look up Human Chromosome #2... very interesting stuff.

I'm just curious what you mean by "I have seen countless countless cases were fossil evidence has been falsified. And I have never seen a single case of one species evolving into another. Quite the opposite in fact it seems to me that the DNA we are made up of is rather fragile and tends to degenerate rather than improve."

What do you mean by falsified? What are these cases of fossil evidence? why do you think that DNA is fragile and degenerates rather than improves. As a quick example, Amoeba have among the largest genomes documented. Mutations within that could cause all sorts of new gene expressions (both bad and good). Probably, most of them bad... the point is, over a long timeline, those beneficial mutations will be selected for and end up in a more fit organism. Check out sickle cell anemia within the African population. That's a single allele within the population, but couldn't you see that as more and more develop (say... because of geographical separation from other members of the same species) that they might even become a different species altogether?

Here's just one that I found. http://news.discovery.com/animals/fish-evolution-conservation.html

The point is, this stuff is happening. How YOU define it or not is up to you. We can see evidence of evolution within our own genome. The real issue is that something as complex as human life evolving from a previous life form cannot be seen in real time. But the evidence is there. If you choose to ignore it then it's your prerogative to do so. Just don't impose it on the rest of us.

There ARE other explanations for these observations, but none as compelling as evolution. I don't doubt that we may find a better explanation (or at least a more complete understanding) in the future. But as it stands, it is not the "only reasonable explanation" (as you put it) just the best.

I've read Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box and a number of other papers that he's written. He's a smart guy, he does believe in evolution, just not evolution by natural selection. He believes in evolution directed by Intelligent Design. However, his evidence is sorely lacking. Mainly because the invisible hand of an intelligent designer is only possible by inference (i.e. we only assume that the watch had a watch maker because we've never seen one being created spontaneously). But if we did have observations (as we do with evolution) that such a thing were possible, why invoke a supernatural cause?

I don't care if you don't "believe" in evolution. It is the basis by which many of our concepts of biology come from. Even if it isn't FACTUAL by your standards, it's the best description of how the medicine and biology we practice work.

I was once talking to a physicist friend of mine and she was explaining to me that the math is NOT the reality, it's simply the best representation that we have currently, and using it helps us to manipulate the world around us.

If you really CHOOSE to not believe it, you should at least take a pragmatic approach and understand the usefulness of understanding the concepts.

True. I use this example to explain the difference. And why a lot of science DOES actually depend on faith. (Please read the rest of this post before flaming me)

If I drop a rock 1000 times and it falls to the ground. The only thing I can say for certain is that the last 1000 times I dropped the rock, it fell to the ground.

It requires faith on my part to believe that the 1001st time I drop the rock it will also drop to the ground. However, my belief is grounded in previous FACTUAL observation. Scientist recognize this, which is why they called it "a scientific theory". Because, if for the 1001st time I drop something, it might be a helium ballooon, in which case I have to figure out why that's different than the rock that I dropped before.

Sadly, religion tends to say that because the helium balloon didn't drop to the ground, all the other knowledge I gained from the rock dropping is now completely an utterly wrong and uselss. Religious observations are NOT based on fact. Can you say for certain that Moses talked to a burning bush? Have you? However, you CAN drop a rock 1000 times and see what happens for yourself.