Bloggers might also be interested to know that BNN is running a Fisk Factor on Jeff's post.

Evolution is just a theory, too. Why would it be so improper to even mention ID in a classroom just so that students know that the concept exists just like the concept of evolution exists?

Fl Mom,

The difference between evolutionary theory and so-called ID is that ID does not qualify as a valid scientific theory. It is not falsifiable, it cannot be tested in a laboratory, and it ultimately relies upon the existence of something (God) outside the universe as its prime mover. Evolution does not suffer from these flaws.

I have no problem with teaching creation myths in a comparative religion class, where they belong, but don't corrupt science.

Doug, do you personally know of a falsifiable evolution experiment that's been performed that both explains origins (which ID is concerned with) and passes Occam's Razor?

I'm not asking for a protest that "it's science, therefore it's better". But do you KNOW of a specific scientific experiment (including falsifiability) that's been done that proves evolution? Or are you just arguing that evolution involves so much less handwaving, that it must be correct in comparison to ID?

(Please note, ID does not equal Young Earth Creationism, as so many... anti-even-mentioning-ID-in-science-classrooms people seem to think.)

Dave, I am unable to answer your question, but I will say that ID answers nothing. If ID is correct about the origins of life on Earth then we are still left with the question of the origins of the creator of life on Earth. After all, if life on Earth is so complex that it requires a designer then just by application of logic wouldn't that designer, by necessity, be even more complex and require an ever more complex designer as well (and so on)? ID doesn't even attempt to answer the real question about the origin of life, it just throws up its hands and says it is beyond our comprehension.

Best regards,

But do you KNOW of a specific scientific experiment (including falsifiability) that's been done that proves evolution?

That proves it, as in beyond any and all doubt?

No, and I suppose there could be a better explanation that fits all of the data and observation from diverse scientific fields which currently undergirds evolution, making it the bedrock of modern biology, but it sure isn't ID.

You're welcome to propose one though.

I have to agree with Doug. Put ID in a comparative religion class.

I doubt any 'falsifiable experiment' (whatever that means) exists. Since we can't turn back the clock to see, or recreate the universe in a lab, we'll never know, will we? They will ALL remain theories.

However, there exists LOTS of archeaological evidence that supports the theory of evolution. So far, no other theory has even come close to amassing a fraction of the evidence that exists to support evolution.

So, while we will never know for sure. The smart money is on evolution since it is the only theory that has found any evidence in support of it.

You can't prove a theory. Theories can only be disproved. This is a true for the "law" of gravity as it is for evolutionary theory.

ID is not a theory. It doesn't posit a description of biology that can be tested. It can't be disproved. When specific examples that ID advocates use to bolster their arguements are disproved (e.g., the complex structure of the human eye), they simply switch to a different example. If biologists design an experiment or observation to test evolutionary theory and the test fails, they are forced to modify (even ultimately abandon) their theory. ID advocates don't do this. Their ultimate belief -- that God is the designer of the universe -- is unchallengable.

Our schools are apparently having a hard enough time teaching people the fundamentals of the scientific method without muddying the waters with a patently non-scientific idea of the creation of life.

So Bush answers a question on ID, that he favors it. So what? What's he actually going to do about it?

Dave,

I am not an evolutionary biologist, so, no I can't quote you chapter and verse on the support which evolutionary theory (which is more than just the Darwinism that ID proponents attack as a straw man) which exists in the scientific community. I do know that they exist, however, and that the basic theories behind evolution are supported by the fossil record.

Can you point to any scientific studies or archeological evidence which support ID ? I doubt it.

As someone else said in the comments, ID is not a scientific theory in any respect.

RPD - according him, he's going to leave it up to local school districts.

All - As I read it, the President's in favor of letting school boards do what they want and would be happy if they ended up deciding to include ID *somewhere* in their curricula.

Oh, great. We already have the advanced world's most scientifically illiterate population, and now they want to put this mumbo jumbo in science class. "OOOOOh, it's just toooooo complex to understand! There must be a god!" Tedious twits.

What need is there for science at all if Intelligent Design is true? Do we not then have the answers to all of our questions--namely, that a bearded old man in the sky fashioned all from his omnipotent mind?

We need trouble ourselves no longer as to how life, or the solar system, or the universe began. The Good Lord but waved his hand, and it was so--and, that being the case, he might at any moment wave yet again, and purple winged giraffes will spring up from the mud and eat us all.

In the meantime, all that is left to us is to scan the heavens for messages left for us by our Creator, much as a young child scampers about the yard in search of Easter eggs his parents have hidden.

Scott, that was most eloquent! (And ditto, for good measure.)

I can't believe that we even have to have this crackbrained argument over and over again. And again.
And again.
If you have to include thinly disguised religion to make science class complete, I vote for including the (Hindu, is it?) 'all the world's a turtle shell' theory in earth studies. Creationism can't be the only mythology allowed once the door's opened.

I think many religious people suspect that beneath the veneer of evolutionary theory is a hatred of all things religious.

While not contained within the rather dry auspices of the theory itself, certainly some of its more vocal proponents have expressed great disdain and condescension towards faith itself and people of faith in general.

I see ID as a rather awkward (and certainly unscientific) response to this.

Sadly, there is a real common ground between Science and Faith in the matter of evolution-- which is that they paradoxically share no common ground whatsoever.

Those who try to draw meaning from Evolution are far overreaching the gunwales of science, and venturing into the dangerous waters of metaphysics where their boat just don't go. Those who think their Faith is diminished by science, don't understand just how narrow and specific science is.

Evolution is made up of a couple different actions. One of the most intrestings aspects is the "selection" of qualities that allow evolution to produce the complex structures (eyes, protien, brians).

I think science has proved that evolution exists, but I have not really read much on where evolution came from or why it works. Kinda like science has proved gravity exists, but not really where it comes from.

Evolution explains a lot, but it still has several large holes in my opinion. And in those holes it is perfectly reasonable to belive what ever you want. Just like I firmly belive that santa clause and his elves produce gravity from the cores of atoms.

For a little bit of science behind ID checkout http://www.icr.org/

Several articles address the protests presented above.

I know I'll get flamed from here to eternity if I make an anti-evolution argument and people know I'm a fundamentalist Christian (ooh, scary). SO . . . read this article from Fred Reed. No one can accuse him of being a fundie. I point to this with a big ol' WHAT HE SAID.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/EvolutionMonster.shtml

STLGreg,

Is this quote from your provided link part of the "little bit of science behind ID"?

We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4,5).

"I think many religious people suspect that beneath the veneer of evolutionary theory is a hatred of all things religious."

Some of the comments here certainly support that suspicion. (And I would agree that for some vocal ID supporters, ID is a foothold to young-earth creationism, which is decidedly anti-science.)

Overall, I agree with a4g and with Jeff Goldstein.

"I think many religious people suspect that beneath the veneer of evolutionary theory is a hatred of all things religious."

Of couurse. Look at the comments in this thread for evidence of that.

In response to an earlier question, I don't think that evolutionary theory is falsifiable. But the antireligious evolutionists won't admit that. As it stands, I think that most people have no problem with the idea that biological life evolved, but that such evolution was directed by God and wasn't totally random. That is exactly what ID says also (it is not pure creationism). If this makes me a slack-jawed yokel, too friggin' bad.

Okay, J Neu. I did what you suggested. I went to your link solely because I thought you showed a glimmer of self aware charm ("and people know I'm a fundamentalist Christian (ooh, scary)...") And I duly read what your non-fundie Fred chap had to say. And it is the same old faux-folksy, empty, misleading, superficially slick, time-wasting garbage you get anywhere on the net. Just another red-faced fool shouting "what about the giraffe, huh?". My leisure would have been better spent larding the cat's boil.

I encourage people to learn what Intelligent Design advocates actually have to say on the topic rather than relying on sarcasm, attacks, and criticism by others. You might be surprised.

Incidentally, all the president said was that he though students should be exposed to a variety of ideas. The horror.

Science enrages creationists because it grants religion no special privilege, and yet that is exactly what they seek: special dispensation, a kind of scientific affirmative action if you will, requiring that their own particular crackpot notions--and not anyone else's, mind you--be admitted into class merely because they feel slighted and insecure.

I encourage people to learn what Intelligent Design advocates actually have to say on the topic rather than relying on sarcasm, attacks, and criticism by others. You might be surprised.

No, I doubt they would.

Ooh, ahh, also from the ICR, that hotbed of scientific research:

Christians should be aware of the subtle and not-so-subtle, anti-Biblical new age messages the Star Wars films present. Scenes from these movies show bizarre, “highly evolved” beings (that somehow usually speak the King’s English) and civilizations. This implies, or even flaunts, the evolutionary paradigm. Time and again, the message is clear evolution, not the God of the Bible, has produced this amazing diversity of aliens. Are they sinless? If not, then they too, needed a Savior. But the Scriptures clearly teach it was the Lord Jesus who came to Earth (not multiple planets throughout the universe) to live and die a sinless life and then rise again from the grave.

That, my friends, is SCIENCE!

I think the reaction to Bush's comment has been over blown. If he is suggesting the ID be taught as a science, then he is out of bounds. This is by no means clear however. ID, comparative religion can and should be taught in our schools as religious beliefs in one form or another are held by the vast majority of humans and formed the basis for the societies we live in today. I posted on this today.

a4g,

There's no veneer here. I absolutely do have a complete disdain for all things religious. I think it's wonderful that Christians finally stopped burning people at the stake for disagreeing with them. I give them full credit for incorporating pagan rationalist philosophy into their theological specualtions, and stumbling into a more enlightened attitude towards religious disagreements. True, it took a lot of holy wars and religious persecution for rational persuasion to finally get its due, but we're here now. We have a government that is kept separate from religion, because we already know what happens when the two get together. Let's keep it that way.

Now, if you consider it unfair that the government is pushing a secular, scientific viewpoint on people via the public schools, I'm going to shock you by agreeing with you. Rather than using that as an excuse to bring down the separation of church and state, though, why don't we work for something else, a related cause: the separation of education and state. Freedom of conscience should apply to EVERY set of beliefs, not just religious ones. It is not just wrong for the state to tax a man in order to spread religious beliefs with which he disagrees; it's wrong for the state to tax him in order to spread any beliefs with which he disagrees.

The state must remain secular, which is to say it must base its decisions on reason rather than faith, but it does not have the right to take people's children from them and impose a set of secular beliefs on them when the parents would have it otherwise.

Ardsgaine -

Hard to do more than nod my head in agreement of your desire to disconnect education and state. And frankly, just about everything and state (and let's include taxes as well).

But do not mistake my gentleness with Faith to be a carping about "secular, scientific viewpoints". As a cradle atheist, I have spent far more than my fair share of time full of viperous hatred of "irrational religion." (and this is a G-rated version of my R-rated canon)

But one of the nasty things about self-reflection is, that when I probed the deepest foundations of science, I realized I was standing on a bedrock of... faith. Faith in Observation, or Nothing, or God, or ????.

Difficult to say where the journey leads from here, but I suddenly find myself looking at Believers with a bit of curiosity, and perhaps bemused envy.

Jody T,

When I read that article I saw a list of clear-eyed questions from a man with no religious agenda... who was not yet satisfied with the answers he was being given.

I guess the difference between me and you is that you apparently don't think legitimate questions (regarding evolution's theory of origins) even exist. And I'm the religious one here?

Let's not confuse things further, okay?

"Evolution" (as in The Theory Of) is not just natural selection, which has been observed.

It's also speciation through that mechanism, which to my knowledge has not been observed. (I'm also not sure it's practically falsifiable, though it is in principle. To be so, we'd have to show not just that some other method can produce speciation, but that some other method did to the exclusion of long-term effects of mutation and natural selection. As you might imagine, this is difficult to actually do, though it's possible, and that satisfies the criterion.)

Evolutionary speciation is well-evidenced, simpler (in the sense of involving a simpler set of conditions, though the actual activity is dizzyingly complex in the number of entities involved; but in the Ockhamish sense of avoiding the needless multiplication of causes, it's simpler, and has, as noted, the advantage of not positing an unseen, unseeable, inexplicable creator.

Instead, it posits a seen, known, inexplicable existence. [Inexplicable in that we can't really have any idea why or how the universe exists, but unlike a deity, we at least can see that it does.])

Cube: Gravity's existence is observed (or, more accurately, a phenomenon is observed that we model as "gravity", a force proportional to mass and inversely proportional to the square of distance); science need not "prove" that, any more than it needs to "prove" that the Sun exists. Observed phenomena are the raw material of science; proofs, if we dare even use the term post-Popper, are the end result.

Evolution, on the other hand, has not been proven, and is not observed, though it's a very strong and likely explanation for the observations we have.

ID is a crock, but let's not pretend that evolution has been proven yet, either.

As a philosophical propostion I find ID very interesting and even a little compelling. I am also somewhat of a fan of Karl Popper. And as a matter of principle I like threories to have falsifiable possibilities, I cannot always demand it.

Evolution is not a theory in and of itself, but rather a structure that theories of evolution can be part of. I know that in this context most people consider evolution to mean "Natural Selection". But I deal in other theories of evolution (Stellar, Big Bang, nebular theory of the evolution of the solar system, geological evolution, etc). Each of these theories does a better or worse job of explaining what we see. The Big Bang (which I believe in principle) has some problems, stellar does a *ahem* stellar job at finding things for us to look at, same with geological, Nebular just plain sucks, IMHO. I cannot build a laboratory star, but I can do little experiments (H-Bomb) that show the priciples behind stellar evolution are possible. But, I do not think we will ever be able to build a material dense enough to stop all neutrinos. But we need neutrino coupling for supernovas to happen under this model. If we can't run the experiment what does that say about the theory. Popper would toss the theory and I think he is dead wrong.

But in order for evolution to be wrong all of these theories need to crucially fail. Natural Selection might just be wrong (punctuated equilibrium as a better alternative?) but that says nothing about evolution.

The main problem with ID is that philosophically it is not science. Unless one can place constraints on what the "intelligent designer" is like, then invoking it is syntactically equivalent to saying, "I do not know." Once upon a time people did not know what makes the sun burn. People who wanted an answer obviously said, well, God does it. Science realized that appealing to God is the same thing as saying I do not know.

Find me a crashed space ship with genetic enigneering equipment on it, and we can start to talk, but even then you still have the regression problem. But that same problem exists when appealing to God, and the rubes will never allow that it be something simple like random flucutaions in quantum vaccum. For them it has to be something bloody complex like God.

doug

Public schools don't teach science anyway.

I mean that they do not teach scientific method. The vast majority of the graduates, I am sure, have no real comprehension of experimentation or empiricism in general.

They remember "science" as a collection of things they had to memorize.

While I agree that ID is bogus, the rabid denounciation of it does seem to fit into a pattern where scientists are setting themselves up as the new priesthood. Let anyone disagree with their pronouncements, be it global warming or whatever, and they're denounced as heretics and idiots.

The ID advocates have pointed out some potential weaknesses in evolutionary theory. That in no way advances their "theory" any more than tearing down someone else makes you a better person. Still, the best science happens when every assumption and "fact" is questioned.

A few hundred years ago, it was a "fact" that the universe revolved around the Earth. Heretics like Copernicus proved otherwise. After that, Newton's writings were accepted as fact, except when they were gradually proven inaccurate under extreme conditions. They were replaced by relativistic physics. For 100 years, relativity has held up to every test thrown at it, but that doesn't mean that someday, someone may find a weakness, leading to newer theories that better explain the observations. That's true science.

Larry J,

You've pointed out a very sad truth in the sciences-- that their practitioners (sp?) are just as human as the 'ignorant rubes' to whom they condescend. But its nothing new. The history of science is full of the kind of groupthink and annointed priesthood attitude that you describe.

Fortunately, science has built-in mechanisms that (eventually) break down the blockheadedness of the day, so that the new, slightly improved blockheaded paradigm can replace it. Still imperfect, still human, but better. Maybe a few more lives saved, a few pains healed. But we take what we can get, eh?

Religion has the same features, but much less efficient, so that the paradigm cycle of science may average out at a half-century, whereas that of religion seems to be half a millenium.

But look on the bright side, if we weren't all arrogant fools, priest and scientist alike, what would we have to blog about?

ID is just a smokescreen for creationism. Check out Skeptical Inquirer and follow their "Creationwatch" link...

Richard - it's comments like yours, and many of those above, that lead me to believe that Evolution may just be a smokescreen for (forgive the term) anti-religionism.

I went to a Catholic high school that was named for the cardinal that tried Galileo for heresy (Cardinal Robert Bellarmine), and yet not one word was spoken in biology or physics about ID - it was all Evolution, Evolution, Evolution - by both lay teachers and priests.

Some of y'all are painting with a big, broad brush here - and it's not the ID defenders. Back it off a notch, look at what The Man (that's the President, not G-d) said, and take him at his word. Because that is what he believes.

I fail to see the problem with that.

On the contrary, I think ID is falsifiable. It implies that any naturalistic explanation for the origins of life on this planet will fail to account for all the evidence, once all the evidence is in.

ID is creationism scratching at the molecular level for something, anything, that will be that bit of evidence that will confound any naturalistic explanation. Could such evidence be found? Yes. A molecular message saying, "Hello, glad you finally found my message. Cheeky of me, eh? Anyway, here is how I designed atoms and such...." There may be other possibilities of confounding evidence, such as Michael Behe's.

But it's not looking good. It looks as though the naturalistic theories just about have everything sewn up. It's not dollars to donuts at this point; it's megabucks to a stick of gum.

There's nothing wrong with mentioning creationism in class. To take a day to explain Michael Behe's argument, and why it's wrong, would make kids smarter. But to put ID on equal footing with the naturalistic explanations - for the teacher to remain neutral between the two - would gives kids a bad idea of how the evidence actually stands. It would tend to make kids stupider.

I think there is more science in ID than science in Global Warming caused by man.

And the world plans to spend trillions of dollars on Kyoto.

Bruce,

I would say that there is as much science in ID as there is in Global Warming, which is to say none. GW is a massive scam by environmentalists to take control of the economy in the name of their religion. Environmentalism is not science. It is primitive nature worship. Its inculcation through the public schools is just one more reason why they need to be shut down.

a4g,

The thing about atheism is that it is a purely negative position. It is not a substitute for a positive outlook on the world. If you have been canvassing modern philosophy, searching for a set of views that you can subscribe to, I don't wonder that you have reached the conclusion that science is based on faith. That has been the trend in modern philosophy at least since Hume.

Of course, there must be some doubt about that claim in your mind, or else you would have already thrown up your hands and jumped aboard the theological bandwagon. Why do you cling exclusively to science if it is also based on faith? What is it exactly that science requires you to have faith in?

Mr. Darwin also thought that all females and dark skinned people were biologically inferior to white men.

Smart guy, 'eh?

JD, (At least Roman) Catholicism has made its peace with evolution. Pope JPII had some public pronouncement that evolution and genisis aren't incompatible. But then for a long time now, the official Catholic position on a lot of the new testament has been very metaphoric and non-literal.

The Creation Science / ID stuff is purely a NAmerican xtreem protestant phenom, based on the doctrine of literalism (so that the world was created in 168 hours, you can count the begats and figure out how long humans have existed, etc.) and the eternal quest of some scientifically minded christians to try to squish the bible into the current state of scientific theory.

I'm sceptical about ID (even without the creationist baggage) mainly because 'design' is a heuristic concept and not an observable process. So the real hypothesis of ID is "the universe is built on heuristic principles".
Two problems with that. The human brain tends to perceive things in patterns (even when they're not there). So the ID quest for complex patterned construction is bound to be successful whether it's there or not.
Taking ID principles to their limit would actually tend to argue against an omniscient and omnipotent figure which would have no need of the kind of heuristic principles ID claims to be looking for.
Some kind of humanoid alien 'seeding' life on earth is much more believable than the Christian God in ID.

"the official Catholic position on a lot of the new testament"

uh, that should be "the OLD testament"

I usually don't do this kind of correction, but that's just too flagrant. (though Catholics IME take a pretty metaphorical view of a lot of the new testament as well, but that wasn't my point).

I believe that there is an attitude among many scientists who support the theory of evolution that, while it may not be perfect, it is good enough to not even warrant debate. Those who think that science is perfect should spend a month in my shoes. I am a meteorologist, and despite the best in mathematical and scientific computer modeling, there have been days (plenty of them unfortunately) when the result was completely opposite of what was forecasted. It is a very humbling experience to receive an angry phone call from a client whom, just a few hours earlier, was told that no rain was forecast and now is caught in a downpour and unable to finish his work. I've lost clients due to bad forecasts.

Science is not the be-all-end-all. We crashed a probe into a comet and I've heard that comets may not be a dirty snowball after all. We are going to learn new things every day that will change the way we think of things, some of those changes may be profound.

Realize the fact that ID/Creationism is gaining in popularity. Realize the fact that more and more people are questioning Evolution. I'm glad the President has brought this up. Why not have meaningful debate on this topic? Let's really research the pros and cons. Believe it or not, there are scientists (yes they do have degrees) that support ID/Creationism. I get the feeling that it is the evolutionists that are afraid to engage in debate. If they believe that they are correct, then what are they afraid of?

It's not just Christians who support ID but Jews and Moslems as well. There are passages in the Old Testament that describe the Earth as a sphere. After making a discovery, Sir Isaac Newton would give thanks to God for being able to witness His wisdom. Are you going to call him a religious freak? I don't think so.

Oh well, interesting topic. Time for a vodka and vinegar.....yummm.

"Monkey Trial support" ?? Is that like Bush/Hitler or Gitmo/Gulag?

I missed something. Is Bush calling for criminal charges to be brought against someone for teaching or not teaching something?

Hyperbole and ridicule are now part of the scientific process. The vast majority of humans believe in God. They just ask that the possibility of their beliefs be part of the discussion, but like the leftist free speech advocates who now demand speech codes to keep others' speech out of the debate the once excluded atheists demand that all discussion of God's role be forbidden.

Darwin is orthodoxy.
Burn the heretics! Or at least, you know, make fun of them.

Spudskie,
Assuming your vodka and vinegar has worn off..let's briefly chat.
Two correct insights underpin everything you write: that science is not perfect; that there is a lot of interest in ID/Creationism. After these insights, you stumble into the thickets. For the simple reason that these two statements have nothing to do with each other.
Why do modern scientists acknowledge the profoundly religious Newton's genius? Because the principles he sought to establish exist independently of his faith. But you must know that, surely?

Wow, lots of good comments all around. I agree with much of what Ardsgaine and a4g said about school. I'm not suggesting (I don't think anyone is) that ID should suddenly replace the current curriculum. Why not use ID as an exercise in which students can use scientific methods to prove or disprove it? They're supposed to be learning science, right?...not just memorizing what someone else said? It seems very unscientific to just insist, "Evolution is the one way, the only way, and we won't even entertain other possibilities that don't fit our preconceived notions."

FL Mom asks: "Why not use ID as an exercise in which students can use scientific methods to prove or disprove it?"
And the answer is: because it would make a very, very, very short lesson unless you begin with metaphysical assumptions in which case it's not science at all.

At my college one of our biology professors used evolution to "prove" there is no god. This is the flip side of ID, is it not?

From what I can tell, religion is the dogma the ignorant wrap themselves in to keep warm while their real dog is out taking a dump in the yard, or eating cat droppings, or sniffing another ma-dog's butt. Religion is the sin, god isn't. (Oh shit, I didn't capitalize 'god', that's a sin too).

And as far as I can tell from reading the bible, Jesus was one pissed-off dude. I mean, he actually condemned a fig tree to death because it didn't have a fig for him when he dropped by. How cool is that.

Maybe he was just showing off. Or maybe all that power was gettin' to him.
You know, like Karl Rove saying, "We're gonna fuck that guy like he's never been fucked", or Cheney saying, "Go fuck yourself"; all Jesus said was, "I condemn this fig tree to death".

But back to the point, this Alien Design theory is intriguing. I can just see 'god' programming all the little DNA that goes into the brain of a republican, "How 'bout that?" he said, "That didn't take as long as the others".

And those 'Chariots of Fire' that were flying angels into the sky is proof enough for me of alien influence in man's development – I'm all for teaching it in science. Here's a little more from my bible-study class:

* In Exodus 13:20-22 the angel of The Lord traveled ahead and all around the Israelites in a "pillar of cloud" - it was seen as a dark "cloud" during the day in the bright sunlight, and as a flame at night in the darkness. (Exhaust smoke and flame from a jet engine?)
* In Judges 13:20 the parents of Samson spoke with an angel who upon leaving them ascended into the sky "in a flame." The flame did not come from the angel; the angel somehow rode the flame. (Again, some sort of jet or rocket engine?)
* In Deuteronomy 7:20, Joshua 24:12, and Exodus 23:28, The Lord sent "the hornet" ahead of the advancing Israelites to drive out their enemies. Although this could simply mean sending swarms of stinging insects, the Scripture does not say "hornets" - it says the hornet. (coincidentally, the modern-day Mcdonnell Douglas F-18 fighter aircraft is named the Hornet)

As far as evolution not being proven; my friend (the microbiologist) studies man-made life forms growing in the sludge off the east coast.
I suppose to the sludge-things he, too, is a god (although a kinder, gentler god), and at least he hasn't condemned them to death (yet); or commanded them to sacrifice their virgin daughters (he would if they had 'em); or told them to go fight the Persians to get some o' that thar 'Black Gold, Texas Tea, oil that is'.....like 'god' told that Andover/Texas hillbilly.

Remember, not all aliens are friendly, but some of those alien designers must be gay.