Sunday, November 08, 2009 Last Update:11:25 am ET

Entertainment > Movie|Wed, Jan. 23 2008 07:58 AM EST

Why Darwinism is So Dangerous

By Katherine T. Phan|Christian Post Reporter

For Ben Stein, host of an upcoming documentary on the dominance of Darwinism in academia, Darwinism is not just problematic but dangerous even.

In a media teleconference for the film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” on Tuesday, Stein pointed out that Darwinian teaching on natural selection and random mutation "led in a straight line to the holocaust and Nazism."

Darwin said that there were certain species that were superior to other species and all were competing for scarce supplies of food or resources, Stein pointed out. But if there was a limited supply of basic resources, Darwinism taught that "you owe it to the superior race to kill the inferior race," he told reporters.

Darwinian evolutionary theory fueled Nazi idealism that felt gypsies, Eastern Europeans and others were competing with them for scarce basic resources, explained Stein.

"As a Jew, I am horrified that people thought Jews were so inferior they didn't deserve to live," he commented.

But the link between Darwinism and the holocaust is just one of many reasons why the former speech writer for President Nixon and President Ford decided to join Premise Media in the making of the documentary, which hits theaters April 2008.

Stein said he finds it problematic that Darwinism, which he feels leaves a lot of questions unanswered, is being touted in the academic and scientific circles as the only rational explanation on how life began.

Where did life come from? How did cells get so complex?

If the origins of life all did happen by random mutation, he questioned, where does the laws that make the universe possible to function – the law of gravity, the law of thermodaynamics, laws of motion – all come from?

"Who created these laws that keeps the planets in motion?" asked Stein. "These are fundamental questions" where Darwinism lacks explanations.

The film follows Stein as he interviews disciples of Darwinian Evolution, including The God Delusion author Richard Dawkins and proponents of Intelligent Design – the teaching that the creation of life and the universe are results of an intelligent “designer.”

At first glance, the documentary may appear to attack Darwinism and champion Intelligent Design.

But the film doesn't try to validate one idea over another, explained Walt Ruloff, the film's executive producer and CEO of Premise Media.

"Science is supported by empirical work that can be verified by empirical data. We are not against that," he told reporters.

"What we are asking for is freedom of speech ... for people who do research to have freedom to ask the questions they need to ask and go where they need to go.

The current system doesn't allow open dialogue, according to the makers of “Expelled.” The film highlights a number of educators and scientists who are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired in some cases for the fact that they believe there is evidence of “design” in nature or challenging the Darwinian orthodoxy.

Ruloff hopes that the film will prompt congressional language to protect the free speech of people who dissent from Darwinism.

Furthermore, he sees the documentary as creating a culture where things like the metaphysical can be openly discussed.

"Eighty-five percent of people believe in a form of a deity – why can't we talk about that?" asked Ruloff.

"We don't think that we have all the the answers, or anyone has all the answers," added Stein. "We just want free speech."

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
  • Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:45 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Very well said Ender!

  • Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:40 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

    Those who seek justification to promote and propagate their prejudice will grasp at any straw, twist any source, and lie when necessary for their cause. As a southerner, I remember many racists using the Bible as justification and the foundation for their actions. A tactic also used by the KKK, but I doubt Mr. Stein will bring this to light as well. From my own experience, I have found those that feel their religious beliefs threatened by science, new discoveries, or theories to be lacking in faith and biblical knowledge. Many seem reluctant to study the tenets of their faith, their bible, or other sources to shore up their weaknesses and merely lash out at those who propose anything that may not fit in their perspective. This is only my personal experience, I may very well be mistaken. But nothing from science has ever shaken my belief in God, often I view new discoveries as humans figuring out a very small part of the universe God created.

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:24 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish ... It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction ... In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the process ... After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end -no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers ... If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back ... Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong... The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science."
    (I L Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities PO Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc. pp 6-8, 209-210, 214-215. I.L.Cohen, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America).

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    notw06,

    my my all you do is spam the very same quote mines all over the place and never cite a single one. how pathetic.

    are you actually going to cite any of those quote mines one of these days?

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:51 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    "The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution which no scientist can ever prove."

    Robert A. Millikan, Nobel prize-winning physicist

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "The incessant repetition of this unproved claim glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not easily swayed by fashions of science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine." Richard Goldschmidt, geneticist.

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:03 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    In natural matters faith follows evidence and is impossible without it, but in the realm of the spirit faith precedes understanding; it does not follow it. The natural man must know in order to believe; the spiritual man must believe in order to know. The faith that saves is not a conclusion drawn from evidence; it is a moral thing, a thing of the spirit, a supernatural infusion of confidence in Jesus Christ, a very gift of God.

    Why People Find the Bible Difficult
    by A. W. Tozer

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:52 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    The guy hates miracles, but professes profound faith in more fantastic miracles than those found in the Bible. He is not here for discussion--he is living proof of Proverb 18:2, "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion."

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:34 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Is it impossible for you to simply and intelligently state your position, and then accept that others may not hold to your views? You speak as if you have a god complex. O, little man, we who delight in the instruction of the Lord know that the wicked are like chaff that the wind drives away. We have no need for the counsel of the wicked, nor will we take our stand in the manner of sinners, nor stay too long in the place of scoffers. A scoffer is a haughty little man who acts with arrogant pride; one who does not understand that it is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife when every fool will be quarreling. None of your "wisdom", "understanding", or "counsel" can avail against the Lord. Hostility, arrogance, hate, anger, grade-school-playground morals--are these the signs of the scientifically enlightened mind? Is there any wonder why we believers see danger in darwinian religion?

  • Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Star2,

    Well just be sure you don't only look at these 2 pieces of evidence for Evolution and research all things considered that support the theory and then draw conclussions. to understand evolution requires a good understanding in biology, genetics, paleongology, geology and other closely related realms of life science.

  • Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange

    I haven't forgotten you my dear friend. I am working on my response to you. When I am finished then I will post it.

  • Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange

    Re: chromosone 2 fusion and the 7 identical ERVs sahred between the human and the chimp

    I'll get back with you later on this.

  • Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine72

    How about you sharing how you came to faith in Jesus; you know, how you became born-again.

    I shared mine on this post (see Sat, Feb 02, 2008, at 4:48 am-Part 1 and Part 2). It is on page 2 right now.

  • Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:06 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    . . . And repent!

  • Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:05 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    star2 - Find God.

  • Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:00 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    ifeelfine72

    You are lost.

  • Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    AgentOrange: Clearly Star2 and Charlemagne are more interested in burying their heads in the sand than learning anything new. I'm a Christian and it sickens and embarrasses me when I hear fellow Christians make such ludicrous statements.

    Star2: What Bible are you reading? You're making up things not even suggested in the Bible. It's disgusting the way you twist the Word around. God doesn't want you to be ignorant.

  • Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:11 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Star2,

    ”I do not agree with you that the human chromosone 2 fusion and the 7 identical ERV's that is shared between the human and chimp proves evolution.“

    I am not saying JUST these 2 pieces of evidence prove evolution, rather they alongside the millions of OTHER pieces of evidence collectively trumpet the same message – that it is. Do more research into ALL of the evidence (not just these 2) and then trumpet your horn.

    ”Evolution has never been observed.”

    This old rag again huh. Didn’t I already provide how many links for instances on speciation aka ‘macro-evolution’? Star2, just b/c YOU don’t understand biology and what defines a species and speciation and thus evolution doesn’t make it wrong, it means you don’t understand it, just like how you don’t understand most other science theories and evidence for them.

    “To say it does you have to explain how life came into being and how all life developed from the common gene pool……. That is something that you have never addressed.”

    Star as mentioned about 80 times now, the origins are life is completely separate from the idea of life evolving over time once it exists. What part of that is so perplexing?

    As mentioned before, HOW life arose, has no bearing on life evolving once it’s here, get it? Whether god poofed life here, or if aliens left it here of if it formed under chemical bonds doesn’t negate life evolving once it exists. How hard is that to understand Star? YEC can’t figure this out and they resort to it as a way of having to acknowledge the evidence before them.

    “Speciation within a species does not explain biodiversity on a grand scale.”

    Speciation is when a NEW SPECIES arises from an ancestral one; there is no such thing as ‘speciation within a species’. You’re just making stuff up now.

    ”I am a young earth creationist. I view all things in that light.”

    Fine, then what CREDIBLE EVIDENCE is there for a literal 6000 year old universe/earth? Perhaps if I can't persuade you via showing the evidence for evolution I can debunk your water world no-way flood then?

    Star2, you didn’t explain anything. You rationalized it by saying ‘god made it that way’ which explains nothing.

    'why is the sun shinny and bright?'

    creationist chimes in : 'b/c god made it that way silly.'

    see, that answers nothing and explains nothing. we know suns shine as a result of chemical processes under gravity and there is no invisiable agents pulling strings in the background.

  • Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Star2,

    ”When God created the universe and everything in it He decided how things were going to work and how they would be combined together.”

    So in other words, ‘god made it that way’. This is the same stance that AIG and other YEC use and it makes no logical sense. What exactly does that explain?

    ”It is genetically impossible for two separate chromosones in an animal to combine to form an entirely different animal.”

    Oh Ya, tell that to the Donkey that split off from the Horse group family and numerous other species that have fused instances of chromosomes in comparison to other closely related species. It isn’t genetically impossible, it’s just quite rare.

    “the human 2 chromosone is a combination of two separate but nearly identical chromosones in the chimp,“

    Nearly identical is right, more like 99% identical base sequence identical. And it’s not just between the Chimps Star2, but also between the Gorilla, Orangutan and Bonobos. All of the great apes have these apparent 2 chromosomes that demonstrate a fusion, while other Old Wolrd moknkeys don’t have this, meaning this fusion occurred very long ago and not just between the Chimps and Humans most common ancestor but further back.

    “then the only explanation as to why that is so is that God designed it that way”

    This is exactly my point star, to assume ‘god made it that way’ explains nothing as it still leaves those that assume such things to explain it logically in the after math anyway. And it leaves the person who thinks such things to explain why god would even bother to set it up that way in the first place unless they do share common ancestry.

    I don’t know about you, but if I wanted my sole creation to not think evolution or common ancestry was true, the last thing I’d do is leave bread crumbs of evidence all over the place suggesting it is so.

    To leave evidence around that evolution is true and we share common ancestry is antithesis to the whole point of biblical literalism and thus is illogical for a god to do in the 1st place. Also, to even contemplate ‘god made it that way’ is to fully ignore all evidence against instant 6 day creation that has nothing to do with evolution but instead other realms of science.

  • Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:33 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    It’s great to see Ben Stein stand up for free speech in the arena of creation versus evolutionism instead of the current state sponsored endorsement of the religion of atheism that dominates in our educational institutions today. Atheism is a religion, as found by the courts, whose adherents cling dogmatically, even faithfully to their main mantra of evolutionism even though there exists no transitional forms in the fossil record and there is substantial scientific evidence that supports creation. There still exists not one shred of concrete evidence of the evolutionary theory; it still is simply hypothesis and conjecture. The evidence, or data, is the same it’s just a matter of how the data is interpreted. What we have here is a philosophical difference between two metaphysical belief systems, i.e., religious beliefs.

    Is there any reason that we should be afraid of a free exchange of ideas and scientific discovery? Is not the educational arena supposed to be the marketplace of ideas? Is there a reason that when it comes to teaching evolutionism censorship is allowed instead of freedom of information, thought and discovery?

    The 20th century is a shining gem of history. The century of reason, the century of atheism, the century when evolutionism was embraced by several leaders around the world such as Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and many others advancing social Darwinism and helping speed natural selection along resulting in the deaths of millions of innocent people to the tune of 170 millions, possibly more. More deaths than in all of the wars of recorded history combined in just one century. To deny this is to refute all the historical records that substantiate these atrocities perpetrated upon the human race in the name of social Darwinism and evolutionism.

    These leaders too believed there was no God and therefore lived according to their own “moral” code or code of ethics as some of the bloggers have stated they believe in also. As these leaders gained power they persuaded their societies to adopt their atheistic view of life and government and reasoned very intelligently to remove the personhood of individuals they deemed inferior and therefore consigned them to death. After all, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” otherwise we are subject to the whimsical change of public opinion.

    (continued below)

  • Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:32 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    It is amazing how self righteous atheists are about their purported intelligence and use of reason and logic all the while insisting that people of faith in general, and Christians specifically are somehow devoid of intelligence and higher reasoning. Thus they show their ignorance. Evidently either unaware or intentionally deceitful about the fact that numerous scientific theories and disciplines which are still the basis of the modern scientific era were birth out of and as a direct result of the protestant reformation and were discoveries by Christians attempting to learn more about God and the universe he created. Therefore as Christians we know unequivocally where logic and reason come from.

    Atheism on the other hand is irrational. Atheism denies the existence of God and is therefore a universal negative. Students of logic know that you cannot prove a universal negative. To prove that God does not exist one would have to examine every single part of the universe simultaneously, which of course would mean that you would have to be omniscient, which would disprove the theory that God does not exist since you would have to be one yourself, being that omniscience is a characteristic of deity. Therefore, atheism is a logical contradiction, and to affirm a logical contradiction is irrational.

    It is amazing to me that on this Christian news website atheists have nothing better to do that harass and harangue Christians and their views. Have they not evolved beyond their need to be heard? Do they not faithfully believe that in due time we shall all evolve and automatically have the same fine logic, reason and morals as they have? It also appears that some of the atheistic bloggers on this website are definitely proponents of the view of the aforementioned group of despots stating that they wish some individuals “drop dead” and thus wishing to hasten natural selection along. I certainly hope that this is not true, although I have witnessed this type of vehement diatribe numerous times upon visiting this website to review news articles.

    I wish you the peace that surpasses all understanding and that you would come to know the saving grace of Jesus.

  • Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange

    Change "Your faith is in the laws of science that created you." to "Your faith is in the laws of science that you believe created you."

  • Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:36 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    agentorange

    I do not agree with you that the human chromosone 2 fusion and the 7 identical ERV's that is shared between the human and chimp proves evolution. You interpret that data to say it does because you start out with the premise that evolution is true.

    Evolution has never been observed. To say it does you have to explain how life came into being and how all life developed from the common gene pool, or the single cell organism, or what ever other explanation as to the origin of life evolutionists have proposed. That is something that you have never addressed. Speciation within a species does not explain biodiversity on a grand scale. The laws of genetics would never allow for evolution to ever take place.

    Your belief in evolution comes purely by faith.

    I am not an evolutionist, a theistic evolutionist, nor am I an Intelligent Design advocate. I am a young earth creationist. I view all things in that light.

    I proposed a separate explanation to the describe the apparent human chromosone 2 fusion data and the 7 identical ERV's shared between the human and the chimp. My explanation is based on my faith in the living God who has created this universe and all that is in it. I have found Him to be who He says He is. I have experienced His miracle working power in my life. I accept by faith what He says about how He created this universe.

    My faith is in the God who created all things.

    Your faith is in the laws of science that created you.

  • Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:12 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    agentorange

    Chromosone 2 Fusion

    When God created the universe and everything in it He decided how things were going to work and how they would be combined together.

    God created a certain amount of chromosones and divided them according to His will. He decided how many chromosones each type of animal life and, as far as that goes, all life would have.

    From what I understand a telomere protects the end of a chromosone from destruction during cell division. The telomeres limit the number of cell divisions that can take place over an animal's/human's (hereafter refered to as 'host's') life span and protects the host cell's chromosones from fusing together or rearranging.

    It is genetically impossible for two separate chromosones in an animal to combine to form an entirely different animal.

    Since the scientists of our day have determined that the human 2 chromosone is a combination of two separate but nearly identical chromosones in the chimp, then the only explanation as to why that is so is that God designed it that way.

  • Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:27 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Star,

    “Since the laws of genetics of all living flesh is the same then it would be reasonable to assume that if the human and the chimp was exposed to the sames viruses then the resulting ERV's would be the same in the DNA that is identical between the two species..”

    You still don’t get it do you Star? EVEN if modern humans and chimps are around the same area and both contract the same viruses, the viruses STILL has to choose between those 50,000,000-500,000,000 unique insertion sites to pick from!

    And this process is ENTIRELY RANDOM, there is no reason to even think they would be even close let alone identical, unless they somehow share a common ancestor. Other makers, like the y chromosome markers are used to track genetic inheritance and they concurr with this, this Y chromosome markers are the same types used for Aaron as mentioned earlier.

    That means for both species, all 7 viruses had to land on the exact same spot in their non-coded DNA and all 7 viruses are of the same type and were inserted into their genomes at around the same time for all 7, do you realize how slim those odds are Star?

    The odds of 2 species sharing the exact same 7 viral fragments, all in the exact same genetic locations are outside any ‘coincidence’, virtually impossible and can only be explained by the notion of common descent.

    Since you're interested in DNA evidence, you should also know that mtDNA analysis shows that the oldest H.Sapien populations can be found in Africa dating back 195,000 years, while Y Choromosome mapping concurs this location as well. By mapping the human genome and comparing across all the living populations we can trace back to our heredity origins.

    www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

  • Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    star2,

    “The human,though, is vastly superior to the apes and chimps in his abilities.”

    Only in grey matter, language and cultural inheritance abilities. We humans are quite physically inept compared to most animals. No humans can physically do anything as acrobatic as apes can and no human is even close to the strength of a gorilla. A recent study showed that Chimps have better memory that humans do in certain aspects.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3944729

    You should also consider all the extinct Hominids that weren’t modern H. Sapiens, nor were they apes. Some of them used fire, made stone tools, had crude culture etc. What were all these other quasi humans doing in the alleged garden of Eden? If anything they all collectively demonstrate a progressive evolution towards us, the DNA analysis from them independently backs it up too.

    ”When God created each animal He decided what their purpose was going to be in the world and what kind of DNA would achieve that purpose.”

    Where does it say that in the bible? If god decided each animals genetic needs from day one as you imply, why then do genes undergo mutations and changes at all? Why do we see animals (Emus’, ostriches, other flightless birds) that demonstrate if they were designed from day 1, the designer wasn’t thinking very clearly for the survival of that species.

    Case in point, the Dodo. The Dodo was isolated on islands off of Southern Africa, but b/c it couldn’t fly it couldn’t escape humans which clubbed them to death and couldn’t lay eggs off the ground so the rats and other mammals that came with the humans destroyed their eggs causing their extinction. Some design

    ”Some of the biological functions in the Human and the Chimp are identical. They have exactly the same genetic makeup.”

    Well, I wouldn’t say ‘exactly’, but we and the other great apes are most genetically similar when compared amongst all other organisms.

  • Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange

    I'll get back with you on the chromosone 2 fusion.

  • Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    star2,

    “My suggestion is don't be so quick to write off the explanations of creationists just because they don't have any of their work published in the respected journals in their field.”

    Star, get real ok. No one takes anyone seriously unless they have evidence to back up their claims. That is the reason why no creationist work even gets published under peer review as they never pass the level of critique required.

    “The reviewers of these journals are evolutionists and they automatically reject anything that would suggest that they are wrong"

    You’re wrong star; they do publish SOME work that doesn’t conform to the data, but not those that are grossly out of line away from the evidence and data (like those that ICR and AIG use). Behe’s own work was published thought he didn’t refer to ALL the evidence that showed IC to be a crock. This is why we use peer review as we want only the most accurate and correctly supported ideas out there and not hearsay nonsense.

    “The complexity of the biological systems are beyond words”

    Well I hope you don’t venture down the ID path of IC, good luck if you do. Cosmological systems still are, and were even more so in the past incredibly complex and Newton and Laplace used god to fill in the gaps of ignorance to explain away that which they lacked knowledge and evidence for. Only till other future cosmologists came along did it become obvious that no god was involved in any of it, but rather it’s the natural process of the cosmos.

  • Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:09 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    agentorange

    Part 1

    Re:Ok, let me simpify it here. ERV insertion into an animal’s genome is ENTIRELY RANDOM. For 2 animals (which already share 98.5% similar nuclear DNA, that would be us and Chimps) to have the EXACT same 7 viral fragments (1 ERV per unique type of virus) and that all 7 be all in same genetic locations of their respected genomes is outside the odds and probability and virtually impossible for both them and us to share the same ones and in the exact same genetic locations. The only way this evidence can be explained is by common ancestry and evolution.
    By all means try to explain this evidence without evolution and common descent.

    I disagree with your conclusion. There is another explanation for it. When I get it I'll let you know.

    ANSWER: The explanation comes from Genesis 1

    From Genesis 1 we find the following:

    o God is the creator of all things
    - space [firmament (atmosphere), heavens (outer space)]
    - light in the form of sun, moon, stars
    - earth with dry land and seas
    - plant life:grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees yielding fruit after its own kind
    - fish:each type of fish created after its own kind
    - fowl:each type of fowl created after its own kind
    - animal life and insects:each type of animal and insect created after its own kind
    - humans:Adam and Eve were created in the image of God and after His likeness

    o Each creation serves a purpose.
    Examples: 1) the lights in firmament divides the day from the night, and is for signs, season,
    days and years. 2) Plant life is food for the animals and humans.

    o Human life is unique from all of God's creation in that humans were created in the image and likeness of God.

  • Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:07 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    agentorange

    Part 2

    o God created laws to control the behavior/function of all his creation.

    The plant life receive their food from the ground. The genetics that control that are similar or the same.

    The laws of genetics that control the biological functions of all animal life is the same or similar. We can deduce this from the fact that animals and humans each consume the same kind of food, and their respective systems process these foods in a similar way. Thus, the genetics that control the consumption of these food are the same or similar.

    Hence, the laws of genetics will be the same among the species.

    According to Genesis 1 animal life and human life are similar but different. They are similar in the sense that animals and humans can see, hear, feel, smell, taste, reproduce, elimate body waste, etc.. Each require sleep, water. The difference, again, is that Man is created in the image and likeness of God whereas the animals are not.

    However, the laws of genetics that control the biological functions of each are the same.

    Now, focusing on the great apes, chimps, and humans. It is obvious that the apearance of each of these are simialr. Each have two feet with toes, two hands with fingers, a head, two ears, two eyes, a nose,a mouth with teeth, and a brain. They all have similar abilities. The can hunt for food, make use of tools, they have their own form of communications, and etc. The human,though, is vastly superior to the apes and chimps in his abilities.

    God established what all the biological components (DNA, chromosones, genes, etc) were going to be, how they would function, what traits/behaviors they would define, and etc..

    When God created each animal He decided what their purpose was going to be in the world and what kind of DNA would achieve that purpose.

    Some of the biological functions in the Human and the Chimp are identical. They have exactly the same genetic makeup. God designed it that way. Since the laws of genetics of all living flesh is the same then it would be reasonable to assume that if the human and the chimp was exposed to the sames viruses then the resulting ERV's would be the same in the DNA that is identical between the two species.. So, this is my explanation as to why the human and the chimp have 7 identical ERVs.

  • Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    star2,

    “All the information that was given with the supporting data does not say to me that evolution is true.”

    I gave you ONLY 2 pieces of evidence, perhaps do more research, refer to current books on the subjects.

    “How biological systems work is mind boogling to me. Look at the complexity of it all. How can one say that it all happened by chance?’

    What biological systems? You mean the eye, blood clotting, bacteria flagellum and other IC concepts that ID folk use that ALL have been shown to have evolutionary methods to explain their complexity? Even seedplanter must acknowledge this and so should you.

    Take a look at ALL the biological systems star, many show signs of hap hazard design if they were designed. Why do humans have wisdom teeth anyway if the vast majority of the populace can’t use them or must have them pulled b/c they are a nuisance? Many other signs like this don’t point to an orderly system of benevolent intelligent design but rather indifference at many intersecting levels. Most organisms in fact aren’t ‘perfectly designed’ or even exhibit anything near ideal design.

    “To have to give evolution billions of years to work only goes to say that the probability of life changes to takes place as we have observed them is next to impossible if not impossible”

    We don’t just throw in billions of years, the testing we do on biological and mineral evidence reveals these dates and this is the timeline that is used. Well, don’t think of it working under chance, it's not a continual roll of the dice. Only mutations are random within Evolution, so really NS is the opposite of chance in abstract.

  • Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    star2,

    “Response:The noncoding DNA or junk DNA may not define any behavior in the organism but they do perform functions within the cell. At least that is what the wikipedia articles say.”

    Yup, that’s right. Up to 30% (I think it’s actually 27%) of the human genome is coded DNA, the rest is uncoded, however it is still all passed down each generations. Much of it, as Wiki states it responsible for actuating genes that are coded, so you could say SOME are indirectly used for such things. ERV’s are however not as they serve no active or indirect purpose at all, all they show is that a given population shared a specific endogenous retrovirus and nothing more. That said there is no reason for us and Chimps to even share such a non coded trait at all.

    “What was used to determine the human genome could have been different if they had used other humans.”

    True, but all members of a population of a given species (human or not) will share identical base sequences and other genetic traits that are unique and only found in a given species. Sure we could have mapped another humans genome, however only the .001% differences would be evident, which is why all humans are 99% genetically identical and in comparing our DNA to Chimps it’s a non-factor as all humans are all equally as different as Chimps.

    “Thus, the results may have been different if other subjects in each species were used to determine the genome.”

    Nope, see above.

    “How do you know that what was found, the 7 identical ERV's, between the human and chimp was not coincidental?”

    Go back to the video, refer to the links it uses and research all the ERV markers that we and Chimps have. www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA

    Coincidental? Not a chance, he outlines why in the vid quite well. The range of possible insertion points any ERV can attach itself to ranges from 50,000,000 – 500,000,000, and this figure depends on the 500-2000 Integration sites and 100,000-250,000 Base pairs per Integration site to select from. With these kinds of numbers, for two species to share not only the same 7 ERV’s, (keep in mind we could find more too) and they are all 7 in the exact same genetic sequences between them, you must admit extremely low.

  • Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    seedplanter,

    “When you say that Darwinism has nothing to say about the origin of life, aren't you in fact over-steering when you try to miss irreducible complexity?”

    1st, it’s ‘Evolution’ not Darwinism. Other scientists at the same time and before him had the same ideas on Evolution and organisms sharing common descent besides Darwin. Either a system is IC or it’s not, if it is then evolution couldn’t have been the method by which the system came to exist. If you posit this ‘ID being’ built certain biological systems, then we should also logically as why so many biological systems show bad and hap hazard signs of design.

    “It is a fallacy for naturalists to assume an unguided role as inferred by ‘natural’ selection.“

    Fine, show how NS is the affect of a ‘guided hand’ then. NS is as natural as any other process in nature, look up the details. ID can’t work within the constraints of NS as it allows for natural processes to collectively create higher orders of complexity, which kills IC before it even gets going.

    “A thread of mutations you might be inclined to say; from purposeless, useless genetic acts of violence to purposeful transcendence of the structural beauty found in life”

    What, the same mutations that Behe cries as being unable to produce NEW GENETIC information from generation to generation? Most mutations aren’t beneficial or harmful, but benign. However, only a beneficial mutation will add in the fitness of a species as a harmful one will be more likely to kill it or cause it to be deselected (become lunch via NS. You mean like this kind of mutation?
    www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm

    A small mutation as you know can produce an ‘added fitness’ for an organism against its rivals and makes it more prolific in the long run.

  • Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:33 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Star2,
    Amen! Thank you, and God bless you.

    May all forgive me for my previous quarrelsome tones. Even you, agent. I wrongfully drew you out to attack me, just to make a point about your stance--but in the end only said much about my own. Thank God for His Word. I have much to learn and to apply.

  • Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:05 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    When asked on what he thought about scientists who questioned Darwin's theory and sought to explore alternative theories, which includes but is not limited to Intelligent Design, Dr. Kay dodged the question and responded, "To put the record straight. . .[ID] is not a theory or hypothesis, it makes no predictions, and it has no place in the science classroom because of this. It is therefore a false assertion that evolution "censors" ID. ID is not science, but a belief system." (Emphasis added)

    Reports of scientists at major universities and learning institutions losing their jobs or being denied tenure have come up in recent years for refusing to accept macroevolution. These scientists, not all of whom are creationists, with legitimate degrees from high ranking universities have been discriminated against for wanting to scientifically question Darwin's theory.

  • Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:02 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Dr. Kay wrote "the humanities rather than our science classes" is the right forum to discuss the Bible and various philosophies, suggesting that the First Amendment right to free speech can be enforced anywhere else except the science classroom.

    Thus, scientists and science educators who wish to perform scientific inquiry and investigations beyond or in place of Darwinism risk persecution or termination. And their students, from grade to graduate school, are short-changed by being denied the perspectives and "scientific views" of these qualified scientists.

    Without even knowing scientific alternatives to Darwinism exist, students are denied the knowledge and right to choose their methodologies, forced instead to accept an atheistic worldview, whether scientific or otherwise.

    You can view the full transcript of the chat with Steve Kay at http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20071214-1400-evolutionchat.html.

  • Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange

    I flagged my entry below to add the additional information.

    correction to the Sun Feb 3, 2008 1:10 am posting:

    o change 'rate' to 'constant'
    o Dr Anderson came to my University (Univ of Tn at Chatt) in the early part of 1971
    o 'significantly altered' means the decay constant was altered by a statistically significant amount
    o Spangler told me their work was reject in 1972 by the reviewer
    o Anderson and Spangler eventually (1974) had their work published

  • Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:36 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    agentorange

    I did some research in the different areas we talked about. The complexity of the biological systems are beyond words. The Psalmist David said it best.

    Psalm 139:13-14

    13 "For thou hast possesed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

    14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well." Amen.

  • Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange

    God loves you. I hope one day you will come to know His love for you.

    I left a variety of comments for you and also my salvation testimony. I hope you will take time to read everything I wrote.

  • Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:10 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    agentorange

    Part 1

    A scientist who is interested in truth would welcome debating those who hold an opposite view to his own. He would make every effort to try to understand how his opponent interprets his data and why he interprets it the way he does. The scientist may find that his understanding of how things work may be wrong or he may be able to help the opposing scientist to see the error of his thinking should he find fallicy in his thinking.

    Now, you made the following comments:

    “Kent R. Rieske, B.Sc., and Bible Life Ministries. All Rights Reserved. Wrong site brainiac”

    Like it matters. You’d honestly take a ministries opinion with regards to science! That’s just as bad as a conspiracy site.

    You just regurgitated nonsense. You didn’t provide a single scientifically peer reviewed article to back any of it up. It’s all hearsay nonsense, white noise that only stick hicks believe.

    if you're going to argue a point site it with scientiifcally backed data like I have."

    My suggestion is don't be so quick to write off the explanations of creationists just because they don't have any of their work published in the respected journals in their field. The reviewers of these journals are evolutionists and they automatically reject anything that would suggest that they are wrong. They are essentially close minded and possibly unethical if they know that the creationist had a discovery that contradicted the evolutionist world view of how things work.

  • Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:10 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    agentorange

    Part 2

    Let me illustrate with a real life example of something I had some personal involvment with.

    In undergraduate school I was a physics major. My interest was in nuclear physics. I took a Nuclear Physics course and its lab in my junior year. In the first semester of my senior year I wanted to do an experiement that tested the decay rate of radioactive substances in a charged field to see what would happen. My professor said "No" that I couldn't do it because they never wanted to test decay rates under any kind of charged field.

    A couple of months later a Nuclear Chemist by the name of Dr. Anderson came to my university and presented his research on testing the decay rate of radioactive chemicals in a charged field. He found that their decay rates were significantly altered. My professor, Dr. Spangler and Dr Anderson pursued this further together and discovered that the decay rate for radioactive substances is not constant like one use to think but could indeed be altered in a charged field.

    They wrote up their results and presented it for publication. Their paper was rejected. The reviewer took their findings and altered their experiments some to make it look 'original', wrote up his findings, and had his paper published.

    The reviewer of Drs. Spangler and Anderson's work was unethical and he stole their idea. He knew that they had a significant find and he wanted the credit for it.

    It is a dog eat dog world in the scientific research community. Just because a researcher doesn't get his paper published it doesn't mean that their work was not worthy of publication.

    Don't be afraid to look at the work of people who don't hold to your position. Examine their position closely and see if they might have something in their understanding on how things work. Either you will find weaknesses in their arguments and their findings worthy of rejection or you might just find that they are on to something. It can only help in your pursuit of truth not hurt it.

    God loves you.

  • Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    agentorange

    No one was present when life began. No one knows how it happened. Each group of people, whether they be creationists,evolutionists, or theist evolutionists have ideas about how things came into being. Each group takes the data that science has produced and interprets it based on their world view.

    You, as an evolutionist, see the data as verifying the evolutionary theory. As a creationist, I do not. I have a different explanation as to why the data is the way it is. Theistic evolutionists would have some other kind of explanation with a hybrid of thoughts related to creationism and evolution with a heavy leaning towards evolution.

    Neither group will be able to convince the others that their interpretation is the correct one apart from some outside influence.

    I did some research on the topics we discussed; evolution, natural selection, speciation, genetic drifting, ERVs, chromosomes, etc. All the information that was given with the supporting data does not say to me that evolution is true.

    How biological systems work is mind boogling to me. Look at the complexity of it all. How can one say that it all happened by chance? To have to give evolution billions of years to work only goes to say that the probability of life changes to takes place as we have observed them is next to impossible if not impossible; the probability of it happening is so astronomically small that the chance of it happening is zero. I would conclude from that that evolution is not possible.
    It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe that an infinite God, who has infinite wisdon, knowledge, and understanding, created, designed, and brought forth the universe and all that is in it.

  • Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange?

  • Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange-are you here?

  • Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange

    I may not be here at exactly 8 PM. I am posting the following in case you get here before me.

    star2 said, “Human Chromosome 2 fusion and 7 identical ERV’s we and Chimps share does not prove natural selection. These are merely codes that describe certain behavior. “

    agentorange said," ERV’s are located in the non-coding (junk DNA) section of an animals genome.

    THEY DON’T HAVE ANY FUNCTION CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR. They are retroviral fragments that show what viruses a species had and nothing more. They have absolutely NOTHING to do with defining if an animal is hairy, tall, short, dark haired, light haired, etc.

    This is non-coding DNA, it has NO defining function on the organism at all. All ERV’s are, are a genetic marker showing that this type of animal had ‘X-type’ of viruses in the past. Period. And it just so happens we and Chimps share the exact same 7 and they are in the exact same identical genetic locations. Most importantly, is that ERV’s are reverse transcribed into the hosts genome entirely at RANDOM."

    Response:The noncoding DNA or junk DNA may not define any behavior in the organism but they do perform functions within the cell. At least that is what the wikipedia articles say.

    The heritary characteristics vary within the species. What was used to determine the human genome could have been different if they had used other humans. Same for the chimps. Thus, the results may have been different if other subjects in each species were used to determine the genome.

    How do you know that what was found, the 7 identical ERV's, between the human and chimp was not coincidental?

  • Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Star2:
    Amen!

  • Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange

    agentorange

    Part 1

    God told me to give you my testimony. So, here it is.

    I was raised in the Baptist Church. When I was 8 yrs old God gave me a revelation of the reality of hell. I went forward during invitation time that Sunday and asked Jesus to save me.

    I didn't make Jesus the Lord of my life though. As a result, I lived a life of sin. These sins included but were not limited to lying, stealing, cheating, cussing, unforgiveness, hatred, and etc.

    Over time God allowed my sin to destroy my life. My sin brought death to my relationships with people, to the use of my abilities, and to my psychological well being.

    I was in my 4th graduate school. My first term was not good like it had been in the previous graduate schools I had attended and flunked out of. I was worried about being able to succeed. I knew that if I failed out of this school that I would have no hope of getting a better paying job. All I could hope for was to go back to my $3/hr drafting job, and live at home with my mother. My future seemed bleek.

  • Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:48 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    agentorange

    Part 2

    In my dorm room there was a Gideon Bible. Out of boredom I picked it up and began to flip thru the pages looking for a place to read. I couldn't read anywhere until I came to Matthew 6:25-33.

    I read the passage. Jesus was saying why do you worry about what you are going to wear and what you are going to eat. He said that we were more valuable to God then the birds whom he feeds and the lillies whom he beautifully adorns. Then he said "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." (Matt 6:33).

    I didn't understand a word I read. My mind was numb and blank. But when I read Matt 6:33 for some reason I wanted to read it twice. Afterwards, the Lord spoke to me and said, "Pat, put Me first in you life and I will take care of what you are worried about." He said that twice to me just like I read Matt 6:33 twice. Then, with some anger in His voice, He said, "You have been trying to run your life apart from Me." Right after that it hit me in my spirit. My mind cleared out and I knew that God was real, and that I had sinned against God and God alone. God showed me how my sin destroyed my life. Afterwards, I began to pray. I said, "Yes, Lord, you are right, I have been running my life apart from you and I have made a mess out of it." I repeated to Him how I understood how my sin destroyed my life. Then I prayed "I will put you first in my life. I will go to Church and I will tithe."

    I went home for the holidays. I returned to school in Jan for the winter term. My first Sunday back, when I woke up I decided to go to Church because I had promised God that I would go. When I got my pay check at the end of the month, I decided to tithe. After this, the very next day, my life changed. God blessed me in my finances by giving me a tutoring job. He made me a better student and teacher. He changed my study habits. He set me free from being entertained by ungodly TV. He made me an outgoing person. I went to Church Sunday morning, Sun night , and Wed nights too. I wanted to be in the house of God. I can truly say that I was not the same person that I was before I came back to God and kept my commitment to Him.

    God took me from being a failure to being a success. I graduated from school and got a good paying job with a NASA contractor.

    God is real. I have found His Word to be trustworthy. I place my faith in the living God who has changed my life.

    I accept the Word of God by faith. I do not understand everything in it but I accept that it is truth and I seek Him to give me understanding.

    I have experienced God to be who He says He is. I can truly say that He is a miracle working God.

  • Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Agent: "There is no need to disagree on Behe’s notion of irreducible complex systems."

    When you say that Darwinism has nothing to say about the origin of life, aren't you in fact over-steering when you try to miss irreducible complexity?

    Behe answered his critics on the issue of the immune system. The thing about it is I have little doubt that science will discover structural links to that process anyway. The distinction comes in the initial programming or guiding process by which the selection takes place. It is a fallacy for naturalists to assume an unguided role as inferred by ‘natural’ selection. As Dawkins has echoed the sentiments of Huxley in his typical outlandish way, it is fed by the reality that his beloved ‘naturalism’ is hanging by a thread; A thread of mutations you might be inclined to say; from purposeless, useless genetic acts of violence to purposeful transcendence of the structural beauty found in life; a thread of hope that he can maintain his intellectual courage in the fate of natural evolution as he faces the transcendent God who is good, with whom he would not have to do.

  • Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange

    Hi, hope everything is going for you.

    I'll be back tomorrow evening (Sat), maybe around 8 pm (CT). Hope to see you then.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Gifts
  • Health
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links