So Publican if expelled is a harmless piece of drivel; then why is it uner constant attack  by those who oppose it?  The mention of this movie is like the mention of God to a certain segment of the population.  It invites totally knee jerk reactions from people who are unwilling to consider new ideas.  Also I am waiting for your commentary on "Six Dawns." I am curious of your response to ideas that are different from main stream media.  Here is the link to "Six Dawns" Mind you, I do not claim total allegiance to these ideas ,but they do bring up some totally new perspectives to our idealogical programing. http://people.bakersfield.c...

...can I get an Amen?

Pretty much I think the nasal spray commercial royalties had run their course, and Ben needed to reinvent himself again, this time as a 'documentary' filmmaker.

I take back what I said about Stein......it was actually eye drop royalties.

Remember, this is the same guy that thought Nixon got a raw deal.

Neither I nor anyone in these reviews consider this trash to be "harmless."  It does great harm.  That doesn't mean that we are "frightened" by this junk, so much as we are "disgusted" by it.  Kenneth Miller succinctly put the view of millions of scientists:

"It deceives its audiences, slanders the scientific community, and contributes mightily to a climate of hostility to science itself. Stein is doing nothing less than helping turn a generation of American youth away from science."

That is anything but "harmless."  And neither is Marylee Shrider pushing this drivel on a community that is already at the bottom of the scale as far as respect for, striving for, and achievement of education and knowledge.

You are doing the same: dressing religious gibberish in the guise of "new ideas" and "fresh perspectives" and trying to peddle it as wisdom.  The link you provided goes to some mystical claptrap by some twisted crank.

If you have an honest argument against the science, then present it.  If all you have is the same old con then go sell crazy someplace else.  This community needs to nurture a culture of learning, not a culture of con artists peddling new kinds of ignorance.

Take a science class or 2:  it will change your life to learn something about it.

Of course I have no argument against science.  That is just another atheist myth the atheist created to make themselves fell superior to everyone else.  God gave humans science to understand His creation and lead us to knowledge of Him.  Like you said this community needs to nurture a culture of learning.  Not a culture of ignorance and hatred disguised as science.  As you say take a science class or two with an open mind and a sincere desire to learn.  Then you might actually learn something. 

I see a recurring theme with the voices that seem to be afraid of  intelligent design being examined:

1. No credible science or scientists involved.

2. It's masked religion.

  This movie has many excellent scientists who "dare" to question Darwinism and the origin of life - using science.

  In the interview with the top gun evolutionist he admits he doesn't know how life could have began on earth. "on the backs of crystals " is his best answer. 

  When Stien asks him if it might be possible that some outside intelligence might be involved, he said that would crtainly be one explanation. But he said not from God because he was 99% sure there was no God. He said probably from another civilization that evolved on a planet with conditions more condusive to the beginnings of life. 

  Now thats faith. Misguided faith but faith nevertheless.

  I agree with Marylee, it was a good movie. 

Very well put together Publican. Expelled,by film standards, just does not cut it. What I have trouble with its people seeing this as science~ let it be your philosophy,your belief... whatever. But it is not science.

No one is 100% sure about anything~well I am drinking what appears to be iced coffee right now~ but that is about it for surety.

A recurring theme among the voices peddling this trash is scientific illiteracy. 

But attitude they have in spades:  they trash science and scientists in an attempt to change the science curriculum to teach their particular brand of foolish.

David, don't you think that you and Marylee should take a science class or 2 before peddling Creationism in the form of Intelligent Design to this community's science classrooms?

This movie does not have "many excellent scientists" running the ID grift.  Although there are many excellent scientists who challenge Darwinism, those are not the clowns pushing ID:  they are evolutionary biologists like Barbara McClintock, Lynn Margulis, and Nobel winner Stanley Prusiner.  David, tell us, how exactly are you qualified to evaluate the "excellence" of the scientists in this propaganda?  Or are you just making it up as you go along?

Stein stated his view of science plainly in an interview at the Trinity Broadcasting Network on April 21:

"that's where science in my opinion, this is just an opinion, that's where science leads you. Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place. Science leads you to killing people."

Paul Crouch, his interviewer, agreed with that sentiment.  Is that your view too, David, that "Science leads you to killing people?"

There is no "top gun evolutionist."  There are millions of biologists, paleontologists, zoologists, microbiologists, and evolutionary biologists who work in the life sciences, who do fundamentally important work.  You are referring to Richard Dawkins, however, a well-known PhD zoologist and atheist.  Dawkins and several other biologists were lied to by Stein and the full story is easily accessible.

But scientists do not know how life began.  That is, they do not know exactly how it began.  But that is a deception on your part.  There is a 100% agreement that life did not begin in the back of a pickup truck 6,000 years ago, for example.  There is similarly a 100% agreement among biologists that life began at least a billion years ago, that the first "life" was exceptionally simple - simpler than any virus or bacterium, that all species did not appear together, and on and on.  Even the ID clowns reject the silly view that life was created 6,000 years or so ago - even they grant that life is at least a billion years old.

Richard Dawkins does not believe that life began elsewhere and came to Earth.  That is dishonest editting by Stein's conmen.  That is one hypothesis that some have entertained however:  it is not an article of "faith" but a possibility which will either be bostered or disconfirmed with evidence over time.

Now, David, like Marylee Shrider, you are not a movie reviewer nor do you have any familiarity with science.  You are peddling junk which panders to your fringe religious zeal at the expense of scientific literacy.  This community has already had plenty of what you have to give.  It's one of the reasons Kern County kids score about half the state average in 8th grade science proficiency.

I haven't seen the movie. However, after spending many years in college studying biology I can whole heartedly agree that MOST science professors are close-minded. I found it easiest not to engage them at all for fear of mockery. Then in graduate school I started listenming a little closer and found out that many science professors do believe in God and creationism to some degree. They just don't advertise it for fear of mockery, too.

I am not part of the "intelligencia" but I do not have a problem with Darwin or creation.  Since no one is available that actually witnessed our development we all have to make guesses.  I am no where near being in a position to tell someone they are entirely wrong.  But it does bother me whenever someone is attacked for their own views.

Witbee, if by "close-minded" you mean "unwilling to discard a working theory for worthless pseudoscientific rubbish," then A-men. 

Marylee sounds like the perfect candidate for a local school board. We really need more members to stand up to those godless atheistic science teachers.

By close-minded, I mean unwilling to think in any way not taught to them. Most science professors I have had could only regurgitate what they had learned and never wanted to go in any other direction.

Why? Not tenured. No money in it. Afraid of mockery.

I'm not saying that college science classes are places to learn about religion. When I am taking or teaching a science class, science is our business. But you must be sensitive to others beliefs, beliefs they have developed through careful consideration of the facts as they see them. Mockery is never the answer.

Correctly assessing the ulterior motives of the movie producers and the Marylee Shriders of the world is not the same as mocking intelligent design.

That "way of thinking" requires evidence for a hypothesis.  There is none for Intelligent Design Creationism.

It requires "testability" and "falsifiability."  You can do neither with IDC.

.

Science classes are *NOT* the place to learn religion.  That's why IDC should not be taught there.

I admit that I couldn't get through more than a few thousand words of  the Genesis opening portion of the "Six Dawns" dissertation offered by Wayfarer with all its emphasis on the writings of saints and other obscure religious icons to support a somewhat modified version of the stale original creationism theory.

At the root of its message was the same faith-based belief that God alone is/was personally responsible for the creation of the world and mankind.

The Six Dawns missive centers on the core assertion or "fact" that it was indeed God who gave us science and man has misused it in adopting theories conflicting with the tenets of the widely accepted belief in deific creation.

Man, it seems to say, has been sinful in his failure to use God-given science to prove creationism, but instead has bowed to Satan in refuting deistic creation.

As in the old and new testaments, much credence is placed by Six Dawns on the accounts of people of the time who "prove" the existence of God and therefore the religious view of creation after claiming to converse with him.

There's certainly nothing scientific in that.

But here's the rub.

The murderer Son of Sam says he conversed with God, too, through his palindromic dog/god who directed him to slay his victims.

So, why is the claim of Son of Sam dismissed by deistic proponents while they unquestioningly accept all the various biblically authenticated people who have reportedly spoken to God and were given all sorts of orders including the bloody sacrifice of their children on altars and other such savage, murderous acts?

Perhaps it's not so surprising that the biblical biography of God paints a general profile of a raging, vengeful creator who smote or slew millions with whom he was angry.

Anyway, the point is, any "fact" provided by people who claim a direct conversational relationship with God is unacceptable by both deists and the scientific community. 

The bottom line is, the theory of Intelligent Design/Creationism belongs in Sunday School and Catechism Class and so called Christian schools, not in the classrooms, laboratories and lecture halls of public academia.

Why is it that proponents of ID/Creationism feel it so urgently necessary to force it on the general public when there are plenty of religious schools and home schooling program available where they can freely indoctrinate their children with all sorts of related dogma and Godma?

Scientists and others - many of whom are Christian believers - who are not buying into the ID theory are not saying extremist deists can't teach the stuff, they're simply saying faith based belief is not akin to science and doesn't belong in a proper public educational curriculum.

What's the problem with that?

Saberhagen, it's not about educating the masses.  It's about being able on Sunday to say "they're teaching our 'theory' in class too, so you don't have to worry about the fact that evolution contradicts it."  It's "plausible deniability."

If all the students get in class is evolution, they may come back and question the dogma.  Can't have that.

Like I said, questioning Darwin is perfectly acceptable. His theory is not perfect. It's a theory. It doesn't mean that evolution is not a fact.

But let me ask you this Wayfarer. If you believe intelligent design should be included in the biology class, are you open to discussions about how Chaos started the world, or how when a Lotus flower grew out of Vishnu's navel the world began, or how the universe begins and ends in an endless cycle from the primordial expanse of openness? How about that the intelligent design was done by aliens from the Centauri system?

Could be quite time consuming. Maybe they should stick to biology because it would take a very long time to discuss religious and philosophical views that cannot be quantified in a scientific manner.

BTW - I wouldn't ask Publican too hard to read up on science, he is a respected Professor already, who specializes in debating. That would be like him asking you to open up the Bible once in a while.

If they don't teach the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory, then they can't teach Genesis either.  I'm holding firm to that.

Praise be to Chef Boy-ar-dee.

As it was writen in the Divine Comedy by the immortal al Dente.

LOL. You win the punfest Random. I'm out the door. Oh wait. Just thought of one. Pasta la vista!

Hasta lasagna.

Publican - excellent scientists because of thier credentials.

  Shut down because of legitamate questions. Why is "big science" so afraid of questioning evolution? Thats a fast ticket to being blackballed in the scientific community. That doesn't seem quite right does it?

  Is it because ther is really nothing left to explain our existence except intelligent design when Darwinian evolution is found out to be an impossibility. It's either aliens or God  -- which would you choose? 

Credentials are "appeal to authority."  Have they researched the topic?  Is it even their field?  Has their work been reviewed by anyone else?

.

"Big science" would offer a Nobel prize to the experimenter overturning evolution in the laboratory.  Believe it.  But nobody spouting the Genesis story as "science" is even going to know how to set up an experiment.   

.

I'd choose the aliens.  They exist.

Random   -- If big science would offer a Nobel for overturning evolution that would be the exact opposite of what they do now. They ruin  scientists lives (with credentials in the applicable fields) because they know that boat dont float  --  thier actions speak volumes.

Well it's probably because disputing evolution is like disputing gravity. Disputing how evolution occurs is a different story.

How does a Professor bring intelligent design into the biology class. I mean, you could hypothesize that a Supreme Being got bored after.....well....an eternity....and in 6 days created the Cosmos. But then what does the professor do? Can he bring in experimental data? Can he have his class test for it? Can he offer up a valid theory as to the scientific method God employed to create? And exactly which of the thousands of deities that man has worshipped do we argue did the creating?

Is it a biology class, or is it really a theological or philosophical debate? Anyone that gets canned for disputing Darwin shouldn't want to work at that school anyway. That would be wrong. Offering up religion in the science class is just as wrong.

I recommend this site as another look at the alleged expulsions on a case by case basis....http://www.expelledexposed....

dcs, there's a standing offer of a Nobel to anyone disproving evolution.  It would be in medicine, but that's because Nobel wasn't all that much at spotting trends.  Similarly, by disproving the theory of gravity you'd be a shoe-in for the Physics prize.  Turn lead into gold, and you could make your *OWN* chemistry prize.  But your proof has to make accurate predictions that aren't covered by evolution.

There was a posting on a science blog the other day which pointed out that--thanks to science--the entire genome of a species of puffer-fish is now available to download off the Internet.   Simple!

.

If there were anything to Intelligent Design Creationism and if its "proponents" were interested in science, they could use that data on a home computer in their parents' basement (their natural habitat) to show what features in the fish are impossible to have evolved.  No grants necessary; you can buy the necessary computer these days at a thrift store.   Nobody could stop them.

.

You've been lied to, dcs, by people who lie for a living.  They have thoroughly corrupted their little niche in the Christian world (working from their base of operations with the loathesome Sun Myung Moon's "church") and they have *NO* compunctions about lying to you and laughing behind your back about it.  They laugh every time some well-meaning fellow walks out of Ben Stein's little propaganda movie and tries the same old arguments they thought up the *LAST* time they tried this scam.  They laugh when churches put on their anti-evolution seminars (like the one a few years ago I attended, put on by the guy now in prison for tax fraud.) 

They've made your religious beliefs a source of laughter and derision.  St. Augustine, of all people, warned you guys about that. 

And you're helping them do it.  The atheist in me wants to thank you for helping discredit the rest of your theology.  The science-fan in me wants to cry over the unnecessary waste of brainpower that could be used to solve *REAL* problems. 

.

Well, dinner-break's over.  Gotta pick up that protest sign and get back to work.

I read a couple of the expelled exposed (above) and they seem to be very opinionated - and in contradiction to what the expelled said in thier interviews.

  I can only fall back on what seems so obvious to me. If ID is so unscientific and invalid, then why not let it  be scrutinized w/o sensorship so we can all see the invalidity of it  eg.(Lamont- an elective class featuring ID and evolution)

  If evolution, even with its "problems" can still stand strong, then why hide from legitimate science and or crackpots if that were the case.

David...

You and Marylee Shrider are both offering sweeping claims about something you literally know nothing about.  Here are 2 examples of bald-faced, make-it-up-as-you-go-along posing and posturing about science from you:

What evidence do you have for such derogatory and sweeping generalizations about science?  Certainly not from any personal experience with science or scientists...

This is exactly what I have pointed out that you and Shrider and those with your particular pathology have done to this community for decades:  denigrate science and education with the inevitable result that the people in this community that listen to your dripping nonsense end up scientifically illiterate, uneducated, and poor. 

ID has been scrutinized for years and by tens of thousands of scientists and the verdict is devastating and sharp.  It is wedge nonsense from Creationists developed to try to fly under the radar of Supreme Court decisions disallowing religion from being smuggled into science classrooms.  The science is junk as anyone with an internet connection and a 12th grade education can discover for themselves.

And your argument is just bad.  You can make the same argument about teaching that the Earth is at the center of the Universe in astronomy classes.  There is a stronger case for that idea than for ID.  Why not Teacher that Controversy too?  In case you don't get it, this argument points out that you now have to come up with reasons to teach ID in biology which don't also justify teaching Geocentrism in Physics.  Good luck and may his noodly appendages tickle your medulla oblongata in the process.

Just because you fear that which you don't comprehend doesn't mean it's okay for you to spread a culture of ignorance.  Take a science class or 2: it will change your life to learn something about it.

Dcs, Intelligent Design as a hypothesis is not ridiculous.  What is ridiculous is the insistence that Intelligent Design and evolution can't both be true.

I think that a really intelligent design would be to design the fundamental properties of matter so that matter can begin to associate with other matter in increasingly complex ways, ultimately leading to organic life that can evolve into other forms.

Being scientifically literate myself, I can understand the feelings of people who lose patience with arguments against evolution.  These arguments really are uninformed, and for better or worse, science-minded people just lose patience after a while.

What's so bad about considering the possibility of some sort of intelligent design, and embracing the reality of evolution?

The only people who demand that the two be kept separate are people with an agenda.

You can take that whichever way you wish.

PS, here's a little scientific literacy test.

It's easier to turn gold into lead than to turn lead into gold.  Why?

I would love to have the opportunity to study under born again scientists.

I had Biology and Physics in high school.(skipped chemistry)  I used to try to keep up with science up untill I was saved - and then I could easily recognize the bias and lies in biology towards evolution  --- and the silliness of thinking they knew the first few seconds of "the big bang" in astronomy.

  So why would I go take a "science" class from somebody who doesn't even have the beginning of wisdom which is the fear of the Lord?

dcs:    I keep a few things in mind        Remember those that read only and never comment    Remember the Word of God never comes back Void     Remember it's not the job of a Christian to Save others but   to be part of God and His workings

80% cannot be saved in this world    80%/60%  but we do know most will not make it

Before the foundations of this universe Jesus the Word of God was destine to die for the Sins of Man   I've explained before why He even messed with those that are lost and created this place of Trial

Ron

dcs, evolution and creationism *COULD* both be true.  But the difference is that there's testable evidence for evolution.  There's none for ID.   That's what makes it "ridiculous" as a hypothesis--which *INVOLVES* testing.  When someone, somewhere comes up with a testable claim for ID Creationism, let us know.  Science has been waiting for decades

.

In other words, you can't take a science class unless you're sure the teachers have the same brainwashing as you.  I believe that speaks to a lack of faith on your part. 

dcs:    never write off Random    He's like a burr under your saddle     He will come over or fall by the wayside

Ron

Neither, Ron.  I will be vindicated by history. 

.

So god has an 80 percent failure rate?  We wouldn't have tolerated that shoddiness even in Chinese imports.

Random    He puts two clean beings on this earth in a garden      He allows each their own free will      all He tells them   don't eat the Apple

Even you Random could've passed that test      Well for a few thousand years       But a stranger was about to appear   one they never encountered before     you know the story    he appeared as a snake in the grass opps sorry  a snake in a tree

Remember    all they had to do       leave that Apple alone        well this snake in the tree got to talking to this one person and it could've been thousands of years     maybe millions        ; but she finally said heck why not alittle bit

Well from then on that stranger told over what was created for those two     They left that beauitful Garden to live in a world where their free will got the rest of us into alot of trouble      Our mommy and daddy had a bunch of kids some like you and me and those kids still run around eating that apple of sin   and some have ask to be forgiven

Your right about the rate of loss      Some have to see to believe and other believe without seeing      FAITH

But the one thing     EVERY KNEE WILL BOW AND EVERY TONGUE WILL CONFESS    JESUS CHRIST IS LORD

Even you Random

Ron 

Obviously something bad in the original design.  Sounds like something Microsoft would have done.

Random I believe He was after the cream of the Crop    not that we are better   just Wiser

Ron

And he was going to get that "cream" through a process where the less-fit ones died (metaphorically) and those better adapted survived to reproduce.  Hmmmm... that sounds familiar.  A guy named Darwin had that same idea about a hundred fifty years ago. 

.

100 percent failure rate in the first few weeks?  Shoddy design, no question.  Almost as if it were a virtually random process.

Could I be wrong   but didn't Darwin die a Born again Christian      &nbs p; the atheist lacth on to his theory   like to other guy Ron something

You are, in fact, mistaken, Ron. 

He [edited] was a member of a church most of his life (but went for walks during the services attended by his family, his wife was Christian)--he even studied for the ministry at one point before the Beagle.  But no, he was never a "born-again" Christian.    He did delay publishing "Origin of Species" likely because he thought it would do tremendous damage to religion.  He ultimately did publish it because 1)  he was on the side of Truth and 2) he was about to get scooped by a newcomer.

OT, but the California Supreme Court has just ruled (correctly) that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. 

Random it was a matter of time      I knew pressure from the Gay side would eat away till they got their ways

As abortion  polar bears     God outside of schools   spanking laws    welfare       etc     they apply pressure till people began to believe it   or they find Judges       We voted against it in Calif.    But again our votes matter not

It's progress, Ron.  You'll survive.

Let me ask you this dcs. Where in the Bible is the verse that discredits evolution? Is it because God created the earth in 6 days? If you believe that it was literally 6 days, then do you also believe every thing in the Bible as literal? Therefore, you believe that selling your daughter into slavery is okay? If you don't think selling your daughter into slavery is right, what mechanism do you discern to say that the 6 days IS literal?

And do you believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old? If so, why? The Bible does not state the age of the earth. Some folks have used the lineage in the New Testament to arrive at this number. But which lineage do they use? There are two contradictory lineages. And what about the age of these people. How did they arrive at their ages upon death. After all, the Bible has some people living for almost a millenia.

Do you believe that there has been life on earth for billions of years? Do you believe the overwhelming evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth 65 million years ago? If you don't believe it, do you believe all those bones are fakes? If you do believe, then maybe it took longer than 6 days. Otherwise you would also have to believe in the Flintstone theory that man and dinosaurs co-existed.

As apollo says, you don't have to throw away common sense to be a believer. Faith requires no proof. It is the very essence of faith. Science does require proof. Maybe you can consider that a day to God is actually a billion years. If you believe literally, in every single verse in the Bible, which has been badly translated through multiple languages, then you have to also believe the bad stuff in the Bible. A faithful person does not have to necessarily throw scientific facts away to have faith.

Ron...

No part of the story you tell is true.  That is not how we human beings came to be and that is not who we are.  The evidence is clear that it just didn't happen that way.  That you choose willful ignorance speaks volumes about who you are and what you have chosen to be. 

You are not a young man.  That means you have had a lifetime of opportunity to come to understand the world.  You have chosen to squander those opportunities.  In another thread, you showed that you didn't even understand basics like heat and cold, basics that are taught in middle school science courses.  You asked:

"But COLD  where did it come from    what made space so cold between Galaxy     do we asume      cold was alway here"

Ron, hot and cold are subjective estimates of the temperature of a thing.  Absolute zero, 0 degreees Kelvin, is as cold as anything gets - it represents no molecular motion in a given volume.  Neither "hot" nor "cold" exist as material entities - neither had to be created by anything except the mind of man.  It is as if you asked me how "short" I was and I answered "I am 6'3" tall, Ron" and you responded:  "But, that's how TALL you are, but how SHORT are you?"  I would shake my head in disbelief because you would have displayed a catastrophic lack of understanding about that entire set of concepts.

That's not all of it, either.  In that same thread you opined that:

"Fools that believe the big bang   are the same fools that have no faith in Creation=      Atheist   They give out a ridiculous theory    and call them selfs scientist"

No one with any substantial understanding of science would say such an ignorant thing.  It is wrong in every part of it and so wrong that anyone with any substantial understanding of the issues would recognize how miserable your utterance was.  Hugh Ross, for example, a PhD astonomer, argues exactly the opposite of your claim in his ministry Reasons To Believe:  that the Big Bang Theory goes a long way to proving that God is real.  Now, the vast majority of scientists and physicists and astrophysicists thinks he is just plain wrong, but even Ross sees the obvious:  the Universe was formed in a Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago.  While physicists like Ross are in a distinct minority, about 76% of physical scientists self-report as either agnostic or atheist, there are thousands of physicists that consider themselves believers in God.

You yourself wouldn't know science if it sat in your lap and licked your face.  Why do you get to call the tens of thousands of PhD physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists who have spent lifetimes of study and experiment on the matter "fools"?  Besides the fact that you converse daily with an imaginary magical buddy that tells you It created everything 6,000 years ago?

And the depths of your commitment to clueless is not done.  That same thread had you writing: 

"By the way most science believe the universe is 17 billion years old    but the earth is about 4/7 billion   How is that   The big Bang should have made every thing the same age      no you claim the earth 4 billion"

Well, as you might have learned in that physics or astronomy class you never took, Ron, the consensus view is that the Big Bang occurred about 13.73 billion years ago, plus or minus 120 million years.  A great place to start in FINALLY learning even this BASIC information about existence is the Wikipedia entry "Age of the universe."

The age of the Earth is only about 4.54 billion years, plus or minus 50 million years.  A great place to start to FINALLY learn this BASIC information is the Wikipedia entry "Age of the Earth."

The reason these ages are different is that the Earth did not form until the Universe was about 9 billion years old.  The Earth formed shortly after the formation of the Solar System out of a stellar nebula about 4.6 billion years ago.  Basic information about the origins of the Sun and the rest of the Solar System can be found at the Wikipedia entry for "Formation and evolution of the Solar System."

Those are just a few examples of how the choices you have made, over the decades of your life, to remain fundamentally ignorant about the world and yourself are playing out now.  The blame rests squarely on your own shoulders.  Having said that, it is obvious that there is plenty of blame to go around:  much of it must be placed at the feet of the conmen and users who convinced you to shun science and inquiry in favor of the made-up nonsense they fed you. 

Not that it is too late:  you could still work overtime to get a decent education, whether on your own or by taking relatively inexpensive community college and adult school classes in the sciences.

Ron, but there is another issue here.  You are spreading the disease.  You are in the public forum convincing those who might still choose to educate themselves in ways that might improve not only their own lives and the lives of their children, but this entire community's prospects.  Kern County is among the least educated, most religious, and poorest communities in this country.  Those 3 facts are not unrelated, Ron.  But our mistakes don't have to become the mistakes of our children, sir.

The answer is to end a culture which embraces ignorance and to construct a culture which celebrates learning. 

anti - The whole bible is true - and the whole Bible discredits evolution.    

   Read in Romans how sin came through the FIRST man - Adam. Not a Chimp that somehow branched of from his kin and became a Human Being - able to know and love God - yet guilty of sin - even though they would be merely the highest ANIMALS on earth.

The whole Gospell (good news) is based on the CREATION, the fall, and the redemption of mankind  - when I see people saying they believe there could be both creation and evolution together I know they just haven't got it yet. 
  Concerning slavery - you should read Philemon - Its only one chapter but you will see the Lord's heart about slavery - and His mercy.

No, dcs.  Nothing in the Bible discredits evolution.  Many people have tried to force the Bible to discredit evolution, just as they used it to justify slavery and bigotry and war.  But there's a difference between what the words say and what some small-minded folks say.

.

You have apparently no problem citing scripture against slavery when for centuries it justified that practice.  Just accept that evolution and the Bible can co-exist and move on.  Unless you want to concede that science's view of the world is more important to *YOU* than religion's.