As the pro-intelligent design documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” makes its way to select audiences, its producers worry that intelligent design opponents may try to sabotage it even before the official release date.
Among a list of major concerns is that opponents may try to damage the film’s reputation through word of mouth before it reaches audiences later this month, or release bootleg copies in an attempt to destroy the film’s commercial value.
That seemed close to happening when two vocal atheist scientists, Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary "PZ" Myers, attempted to sneak in a screening two weeks ago in March.
While Myers was promptly recognized and denied entry to the event, Dawkins was allowed entry because of what producers called his “honorable” reputation.
Both men, however, were equally critical of the film’s contents.
Dawkins – who along with Myers is among the scientists interviewed in the film – used the opportunity after the screening to criticize what he said was the use of quotes and segments out of context for a film that he had believed would be pro-evolution.
Myers also criticized the film in his blog later that day despite the fact that he was not present for the screening.
“Apparently, a standard tactic is to do lots of fast cuts between biologists like me or Dawkins or Eugenie Scott and shots of Nazi atrocities. It's all very ham-handed. The audience apparently ate it up, though. Figures. Christians have a growing reputation for their appreciation of dishonesty," Myers wrote.
In the movie, actor Ben Stein explores the long-standing controversial debate between supporters of Darwinism and proponents of intelligent design. Through interviews with experts and professors from both camps, he discovers an elitist scientific establishment that punishes the scientific proponents of intelligent design because they reject some of the claims of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
“If you just stand up and question Darwinism – that’s it – your career is over,” Caroline Crocker, a former biology teacher at George Mason University, shared in the film's trailer.
She is among several professors featured in the film who claims they were ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired in some cases for discussing problems with Darwinism.
Dawkins and Myers, along with scientist Eugenie Scott, allege they were tricked into being interviewed for the film. Premise Media Corporation, the makers of the film, however, have denied any wrongdoing.
"There is some serious mistreatment and downright reprehensible behavior going on here,” said Executive Producer Walt Ruloff, “but I can assure you it's not coming from us.
“We're just the ones exposing it.”
More recently, producers of the film bumped head with Myers when the biologist crashed a private teleconference for the film last Friday.
Myers used the opportunity to speak at length of the "the falsehoods propagated in the film" before he was asked to sign off by the producers.
In his blog later that day, Myers gave his own version of the incident, writing that the producers were ignorant in believing that racism and anti-Semitism were products of Darwinism.
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is currently set to be given a wide release on April 18.
RSS
GeorgeX: And you expect anyone who makes a movie like that to actually be intellectually honest? Please.
The Geological Society of London is the oldest national learned society for the Earth sciences in the world, and embodies the collective knowledge of nearly 10,000 Earth scientists worldwide. On their behalf it wishes, during the United Nations International Year of Planet Earth, to place on record the following facts as being long established beyond doubt.
Planet Earth, along with the other planets in the Solar System, was formed approximately 4560 million years ago.
Life has existed on Earth for thousands of millions of years. It has evolved into its current form by a combination of genetic variation and natural selection - and is likely to go on doing so for as long as it continues to exist.
Close study of the structure and organisation of living animals and plants clearly indicates their common ancestry, and the succession of forms through the fossil record, as well as the genetic record contained in every living organism, provides powerful evidence of the reality of evolution.
True fact: there is a blog for the Expelled movie which is controlled by the producers of the Expelled movie. The moderators of the Expelled blog have been changing the comments of some people (including myself) who are critical of the movie. This is extremely unethical and dishonest.
Star said: You can know what God thinks by reading His Word.
But you wildly interpret His word like everyone else. Case in point, your explanation of the passage in Mark I mentioned. If scripture was meant to be taken literally then why the need for the semantic, scriptural gymnastics?
And thank you for the apology - apology accepted! :)
I believe that no one who believes in the Bible has any sense or wisdom compared with me, in accounting for the Creation of the world and all the creatures in it. (All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877)
“The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens” (Pr 3:19).
“By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth” (Ps 33:6).
“…When will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps 94:8, 9).
ifeelfine72
I tried to address your recent post to me on Obama Promises..... artical but it keeps getting flagged. I think it is dongard who is doing the flagging. So I will post my comments here.
If you had read a little more carefully what I wrote accusing you of having flagged my post on Saturday night and Sunday night you would have seen that I accused you for the one on Saturday night and even though I accused you for the one on Sunday night I suggested it could also have been dongard instead who did it.
I now believe that the one on Sunday night was not done by you but by dongard.
The Saturday night one I had different reason to believe it was you. I flagged myself twice to make corrections to what I said. I noticed that you flagged yourself once and I had a post that was flagged that was an answer to a statement you made in your post that you flagged.
When people flag themselves, CP removes those flags quite quickly. Since the two flags I did of myself was removed quite quickly with the flag of your post I reasoned that you are the one who flagged your own post. The flag of my Saturday night post that I did not flag stayed for quite a long time before CP removed it. I only assumed that you flagged me Saturday night because of the discussion and how it seemed to have bother you in some kind of way.
You said that you did not flag me Saturday night nor on Sunday. I will take you at your word. I apologize for having accused you.
ifeelfine72
Part 1
Re:Star: And do you also accept by faith Mark 16:17-18?: "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
Hebrews 11:6 - "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
I accept by faith Mark 16:17-18 . In my walk with God I am an eye witness to the following: 1) in my name shall they cast out devils, 2) they shall speak with new tongues, 3) they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
However, I have not yet been an eye witness to 1) they shall take up serpents, 2) if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them.
I am Pentecostal. I believe that the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence in speaking in other tongues is for today every bit as much as it was in the early Church.
I have attended many Pentecostal Churches. Three of them I attended on a regular basis, each for a number of years. All operated in the gifts of the spirit including healings, tongues, prophecies, deliverance, and etc. However, no Pentecostal Church that I have ever been to handles snakes or drinks poison to prove their faith in God. In thier thinking as well as mine to do so would be pure foolishness.
ifeelfine72
Part 2
In regard to "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not huirt them".
Based on your statement,"I doubt it, otherwise you'd be dead." I take it that you believe that one would have to on a voluntary basis and with purpose drink poison or handle a venemous snake so that they could prove their faith in God. I don't believe that this is what Jesus is talking about. To do so would be to tempt God and we are not to tempt the Lord our God (Deu 6:16).
An example of what Jesus was talking about in Mark 16:18 is the incident that happened to the Apostle Paul on the Island of Melita. See Act 28:1-10 for what happened to Paul there and what God did through Paul for the poeple of the island.
Acts 28:3-6 - gives the particular incident of the viper biting Paul without consequence:
3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.
4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, ...
5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.
6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him..."
Here we see that the Apostle Paul did not willfully handle a snake to prove his faith in God but he was bit accidentally by a snake. God protected him as if it never happened. I am sure this opened a door for the Apostle Paul to preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified to the people. God did many miracles of healing through Paul on that Island. The miracles that God did for Paul and through Paul were the kinds of things that Jesus said would follow a believer (Mark 16: 17-18)
The same kinds of miracles are for believers today.
ifeelfine72
Re:I can't believe you presume to know what God thinks.
You can know what God thinks by reading His Word. He doesn't conceal His identity, nor what He thinks, nor how He interacts with His creation, nor what He requires of people, nor His blessings for obedience, nor His judgments against all that disobey Him.
Re: It is you that doesn't hold a Biblical position and you that is a spokesperson for satan
I have scripture to back up what I say. You do not. All you offer is the wisdom of man.
Howard;
For example, Collins has seen molecular evidence with his own eyes. He has seen what no creationist has ever seen.
Answer; Collins has seen evidence and made a scientistic (naturalism) interpretation. Big deal...evolutionists do this all the time. They seem to come apart when an IDer or Creationist interprets the same evidence and develop different answers.
Creationists don't do research. Also, they know virtually nothing about DNA, especially not compared to Collins (and thousands of other scientists).
Answer; Your assertion is false, imaginative and quite inflammatory. You may want to step away from Meyers or Dawkins blogs and really investigate what IDers and Creationists know and do. But then again, according to your religious belief, they can not be "real" scientists unless they buy into the story of evolution.
I'm amazed you would accuse Collins of having a bias, especially since he is one of the most famous religious scientists in history.
You're correct that he is religious; heavily syncretized with the religion of Humanism and its foundation of scientism.
Perhaps you should convince Dawkins, before me, about an intelligent designer. The scientism for evolution is very weak:
Popular author and atheist Richard Dawkins tells Ben Stein in this film that there could have been a designer of life on earth, but it would have had to have been “a higher intelligence” that had itself evolved “to a very high level . . . and seeded some form of life on this planet.”
Cor34: Based on your response, its obvious you are weak on the sciences. Evolution has been observed - including macroevolution. Science isn't made up of opinions - its made up of hypotheses that can be tested and then either proven false or not.
As for your second comments, that is a major logical fallacy. You don't have to believe in the other "evolutions" to understand biological evolution. I do agree with one thing you said, it is still God - just not a "God of the gaps" - and the process He used was evolution.
To prove Darwin, you must prove the other 6 evolutions first.This will never be proven, Cosmic, Stellar, Chemical,Planetary, Organic, Macro. then the Micro, Only the seventh stage (micro) has been observed, and thats still acceptable anyway. the rest are assumed, and only theories exist for all. The odds of proving even one as accidental are beyond what even a Las Vegas gambler would wager. Even so, I cant see how evolution has a dispute with the Bible anyway, even if proven, its still likely God
Why do some assume because we dont comply with the forced belief in Evolution its an automatic assumption that we are weak in the sciences. Has it become a dictatorship that we cannot in fact have our own opinions on life. I cannot see how billions of accidents in the universe and life itself are any more beleivable than an intelligent creator as God. I will have my own opinions and not be forced to comply with Science or educational systems dictatorial designs on my mind. Thats not Science, thats ignorance of our rights , and our mental abilities to choose. Dont attempt to stifle mans choices for Science or government.
Star: And do you also accept by faith Mark 16:17-18?: "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
I doubt it, otherwise you'd be dead.
I can't believe you presume to know what God thinks. It is you that doesn't hold a Biblical position and you that is a spokesperson for satan. I'm sure satan is enjoying it but not for reasons that you state, but because he knows that you are driving people from the faith and closer to him.
ifeelfine72,
I rarely have anything good to say about Christians, but I have to congratulate you. If there is any hope for the future of American progress, it's Christians like yourself who stand up to the creationists who are only interested in getting in the way of progress.
Thank you and please keep up the good work. You give me hope for our country's future.
ifeelfine72
God tells us in His Word how He created everything. He created everything by speaking it into existence over a very short period of time. Everything was created in its mature state. Do we understand it? No. But we accept it by faith.
Heb 11:3 - "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
Evolution assumes that everything started out in its infant state and took billion and millions of years to come into existence. The theory of evolution is in direct opposition to the word of God.
God decides what is acceptable behavior and what is not. Sorry, but man including you don't get to. God says in His Word that gay sex is an abomination (Lev 18:22, 20:13) and all who practice it will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10).
You do not hold to a Biblical position. Your mind has been tainted by the wisdom of man. You are a great spokesman for Satan.
When are you going to surrender what you believe to God and allow Him to transform your thinking to align itself with the Word of God so that you will know what is the good, acceptable, and perfect will of God is? (Romans 12:2)
Satan has hijacked the Christian faith through people like you and he is loving it.
(I flagged myself)
Listenthink: How would YOU define macroevolution?
Hawk49: You are willfully ignorant. I cannot stand people like you who are so afraid of science. Tell me if someone could convince you that evolution was true (which if you just look at the evidence, you would know it is), would that diminish your faith? People like you make me sick because you do reduce God to a God of the gaps - its not evolution that marginalizes God, its people like you. I can promise you that with all this ranting and raving about evolution being false, you are doing more harm to Christianity than good - I know that for a fact. How do I know? Because when I talk to people and tell them I'm a Christian and am talking to them about my faith and what's its done in my life, they inevitably ask two questions: Do you (and God) hate gay people and do you believe evolution. They typically laugh about the second one - especially the educated ones. So if you want to know why I'm so angry at folks like you and Star and others that's it! I feel like Christianity has been hyjacked by folks like you and I'm hopping mad about it.
The problem with world views is when people use their world view as an excuse to make statements about scientific evidence they know nothing about.
My point is scientists do all the work, and the creationists, without ever bothering to understand important scientific discoveries, say the scientist is wrong. It doesn't matter if the scientist is the best and most productive scientist in the world. According to the creationist the scientist's work is for nothing because he has a bias.
I respectfully suggest the creationists are full of it. They don't know what they're talking about. They should not say "my world view is different so I translate the evidence differently" without knowing anything about the evidence.
For example, Collins has seen molecular evidence with his own eyes. He has seen what no creationist has ever seen. Creationists don't do research. Also, they know virtually nothing about DNA, especially not compared to Collins (and thousands of other scientists). I'm amazed you would accuse Collins of having a bias, especially since he is one of the most famous religious scientists in history.
Creationists keep forgetting a major difference between them and the biologists. The difference is the creationists are wrong and the biologists are right. The biologists don't think they are right. They know they are right. They are absolutely 100% certain all life living today evolved from common ancestors.
Imagine somebody saying the earth is flat, and defends his insane flat earth idea by saying he has a different world view. There is absolutely no difference between a creationist and a flat-earther. They are both equally wrong.
Howard, welcome back;
You have been studying the evolutionists' interpretations of evidence based on the belief of scientism. These interpretations are based on assumptions and extrapolations (ie: Collins stretching microevolution into macroevolution).
The IDer or Creationist looks at the same evidence through the worldview of ID or creation and often develop differing conclusions than the evolutionist.
These basic presuppostions can not be proven themselves; that is why they are presuppositional beliefs. The decision maker has to decide which interpretation makes the most sense to him based on his beliefs. Antony Flew is a perfect example of deciding the ID worldview matched reality closer than the scientism worldview and made the switch.
"The power of a worldview
A worldview is inescapable. Our worldview consists of our most basic assumptions (presuppositions) about reality. Our most foundational presuppositions (axioms) cannot be proved by something else (otherwise they would not be the most foundational), yet we hold them to be unquestionable. We use these assumptions (often without realizing it) to help us interpret what we observe in the world. We cannot avoid this; without a number of foundational presuppositions about reality we could not make sense of anything."
I believe that the common saying that one "cannot draw blood out of a stone" is the reverse of truth, and that not only bones, sinews, and life can be produced from them, but also, mind, reason, and the voice of conscience, which though would-be philosophers and atheists brave out in daylight, they are so horribly afraid of in the dark. (All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877)
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1).
“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge” (Ps 19:1, 2).
“…When will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps 94:8, 9).
listenthink, I have been studying the evidence for evolution for several years. You haven't studied any science because you are lazy. Why don't you educate yourself? Are you afraid of science?
Flagged as inappropriate. Willfully ignorant are those who just accept everything they have been spoon fed in public schools. Willful ignorance is to employ name calling and insults instead of presenting an actual basis for their beliefs. I'm assuming but feel free to prove me wrong that you know that your beliefs can't stand open debate.
"No pro-evolutionists are presenting scientific proofs that macrovolution is true."
Why should anyone waste their time explaining science to the willfully ignorant? If you were really interested in the evidence for biological evolution you would have done your own research a long time ago.
Ladies and gentlemen. Why is it so hard for this to be a scientific discussion? No pro-evolutionists are presenting scientific proofs that macrovolution is true. All I see and read is ranting and screeming that intelligent design is religion. Those of us with the good sense to look at the science shouldn't be baited into a philosophical discussion when the science is good enough.
Methinks you protest too much:
1..You'll have to ask the author of the article to get your first answer.
2. You are entering an argument that will not be answered here as there are two sides of the issue and you only know the rhetoric from one side.
"Mathis, who set up the interviews for Expelled, said the scientists who were interviewed were well-informed beforehand.
“I went over all of the questions with these folks before the interviews and I e-mailed the questions to many of them days in advance,” said Mathis. “The lady [and gentlemen] doth protest too much, me thinks.”
Expelled producers have asserted that film will portray the scientists interviewed in a way that is consistent with their actual viewpoints or other public statements."
Can someone explain the slanderous "Atheist Saboteurs" claim in the article title? Seems the author is obviously prejudiced against Dawkins and Myers, when all they attempted to do was legitimately attend a screening, just like dozens of other people. What "sabotage" was involved? Please clarify.
Perhaps "lying" or "deception" would describe those involved in the film who obtained interviews under false pretenses. But apparently the Commandment about "bearing false witness" doesn't apply to Christians anymore.
I believe that the tail of the giraffe has grown by degrees into a "fly-flapper" (!), although I cannot explain how the species did without it in previous countless ages before it grew to its present length, when, no doubt, there were just as many flies in those hot countries, if not more, than there are now.
Source: All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1).
“O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens” (Ps 8:1).
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God…” (Ps 14:1).
Oops,
Another dogmatic professor forcing his religion upon others (or otherwise, fail):
"The ACLJ said it is representing Gina DeLuca, a student who has been punished with lower grades and has been labeled "closed-minded" by a professor, who remained unidentified in the letter, because he demands that students acknowledge the possibility that God does not exist in order to participate in his philosophy class, which is required for graduation."
Howard,
My dictionary, though it doesn't use the terms substantive and functional within the definition of 'religion' does have several variants; some incorporating the supernatural and others using just faith and belief systems without invoking the supernatural.. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.
Howard; suit yourself, but realize the dictionary you use falls short of reality.
A few of the doctrines from the atheistic Humanist Manifesto I:
FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality ...
THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations...
American Humanist Association
Also Known As: AHA
1777 T St NW
Washington, DC 20009
Who We Are
The American Humanist Association is the oldest and largest Humanist association in the United States and serves as a primary voice of Humanism nationally.
• This organization is a 501(c)(3) Public Charity .
• This organization is not required to file an annual return with the IRS because it is a religious organization.
• Additional narrative information in this report was last supplied by the organization on July 24, 2007.
I think all religions are childish nonsense, therefore I'm religious.
I can't imagine anything more boring than this worthless discussion about your refusal to use a dictionary.
Howard;
Give the two definitions some more thought and you should be able to sort it out.
Using the functional definition there should be no mistake that all people have established an overarching belief system known as a religious worldview. It is religious (functional) as it is based on beliefs.
Using the substantive definition where religion (substantive) is based upon a supernatural being(s) then there will be non-religious people and religious people. These non-religious (substantive) people, however, still have a religious (functional) worldview.
That's how the founders of humanism, the AHA, the Supremes determined that the atheistic humanism is a religion.
If you truly want to better understand yourself you may want to read and try to understand David Noebel's Understanding the Times; The Religious Worldviews of Our Day and the Search for Truth. I recommend his 1st edition.
cont from previous post due to 3000 character limit...I am sorry that you take offense with the children analogy but if there is a God that is what we are in comparison. So once again if I have a young child with a metal implement playing around an electric outlet and I warn that child that if he sticks it into the outlet he shall surely die and do nothing to interfere with that childs freewill and it is killed I am covered by your statement. I have warned the child of an impending doom that he has nothing other than my comments to base an understanding on and I have used simple language the child can understand so the child is the guilty party here, right? That is the basic argument you use here as well.
Zenodaddy stated
"Dude,
'A perfectly just man who had the power to intercede would not allow small children to be raped and murdered if he had the power to intercede.'
Such a flawed argument. Always using children as the example for how bad things can get. Children being raped and murdered is horrible, I agree. I wish that no child would ever face this kind of thing, yet, where is your story about parents killing their children or the mom's who choose to murder their child before they are even born?
Bad things do happen to people all the time. When people, who have free will and choices to make, do these types of things, they get what is coming to them. To say that bad things happening to decent people (notice how I did not call them 'good') calls for the non-existence of God leaves out the other side of the equation... the evil itself.
To have evil you must have an originator of evil, and to have good you must have an originator of good. We each have the capacity to do either, most of us choose the latter in various degrees. Sure, Sure... we give to those in need, we help those around us every once in a while, but these are generally done not to help the other person, but to make ourselves feel better somehow.
This is where free will comes into play. We have a choice, each of us. This is called Freedom. We have the Freedom to do good, or the opposite. We have the same choice to turn to God or to reject Him. If God interceded in everything and caused everything to not happen that would happen none of us would have a choice and none of us would learn from our experiences.
Using children is a low blow. No sane person wants bad things to happen to children. Yes, God sees all, hears all, and guess what... experienced all. The same way God doesn't shield us from everything is the same way we cannot shield our children from everything, even when they get older.
I suggest you read, 'Mere Christianity'... it answers this accusation and many more. To recognize evil and yet reject the good is just asinine"
Oh please, zenodaddy, The argument is not flawed. You have not refuted it but chose to focus on something else, that humans act human and exercise freewill. So let me refute the idea that the divine will not impact humanity's freewill. BTW, I am copying an argument from Ebonmusings, as it counters the "freewill argument" in a nicely concrete form. Actually I will have to hotlink due to the 3000 character limitation. http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/divineblackmail.html cont...
Unfortunately, there are those who walk in the Darwin faith. May such be rescued from that false faith, and embrace the words of Jesus, “Have faith in God” (Mk 11:22).
That's the point Quecat...the concept is biblical and it did not come from humanity. The ONE and ONLY GOD made this known about himself well before mankinds physicists discovered that there are mathmatically about 11 dimensions in reality. Humanity only understands and operates in a three-dimensional world of (Length * Width * Height). The God of the Bible reveals that He alone has the power of being within himself and transcends above all power, space, matter, and time in order to create and reveal Himself to those in a three-dimensional world. Just because we cannot wrap are carnal finite minds around omnipresence, eternality, or omniscience does not mean that such a capacity cannot by expressed through the Uncaused One who designed it all.
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
Wilderness: Why are you quote mining from a book that is 130 years old?
I believe that man, and all the animals, birds, fishes, reptiles, and insects in the world have descended from one single original, and not any of these from ancestors of their own kinds ; that the gnat and the elephant, the cat and the mouse, the bat and the butterfly, the whale and the ant, the toad and the swallow, the hare and the tortoise, the crocodile and the lamb, the humming-bird and the snake, the mole and the monkey, and then the man, are all one species and only one.
Source: All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1). “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Ps 14:1).
After you have investigated the facts and overwhelming evidence (as many former Atheist's had about Christ, the resurrection, and origins), you will begin to doubt your doubts about God and Christ. Any how, its superstitious for scientists to place such great faith in the improbable odds of random mutations and chance. Even the experiments conducted after the Miller Experiment which were "designed" to "recreate" scenarios used to explain how certain DNA proteins arose by chance actually demonstrated that 75% of the time intervention by the intelligent scientists were necessary to produce enantiomers that do not develop randomly in nature nor in the Miller Experiment. Like it or not, there is a shift occurring within the science community. For many years atheists and secular humanist had an oligarchy of power within academia and waged intimidation campaigns against any discovery or piece of evidence that may challenge the foundation of their worldview. They have become as the wizard of OZ demanding that the public not be allowed to see whats really behind the their black curtain of science-FICTION.
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
I BELIEVE that we are the people, and that wisdom shall die with us.
I believe, I am ready to believe, anything- like the Infidel of old provided only it is not in the Bible.
I believe that my theory of natural selection is right, and that every one who does not hold it is in the wrong, although the difficulties "are so grave, that to this day I can never reflect on them without being- staggered." (Darwin.}
Source: All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1). “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Ps 14:1).
I also would add that we need to likewise get the religion of atheism of science as well. Dinesh D'sousa makes the interesting point that too many times atheism is maquarding itself as science.
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/04/07/atheism-masquerading-as-science/
If the characteristic of omnipresence is invalid - where did we even get the idea that someone or something had/has/will have the ability to be present in every place at any, and/or every time, unfettered by the dimensions of time and space?
Did the mind of man somehow conceive of an impossible and therefore nonexistent state of being?
And if omnipresence IS a valid state of being, to whom or what does it belong?
Actually it takes more faith to believe in a theory that purports to explain our existence while ignoring the ultimate origins of life.
Evolutionists proudly crow that we all evolved, without being able to address what exactly it is that we evolved from. Primordial soup? A random chemical component from a passing meteor? And what's more, they insist that their utter ignorance of the beginning in no way impacts the validity of what they believe about what occurred 'after'.
A casual perusal of abiogenesis and it's myraid 'maybe this' or 'maybe that's - goes to show that science is largely clueless.
Can you wrap your mind around the concept of eternity? When did time begin? If it did begin at a distinct moment, who or what was it's catalyst? Who or what started the clock? And what existed prior to the beginning of time? Do you see the difficulty inherent in the very question?
That mankind does not even have adequate words in his language to express timelessness only highlights our inability to even begin to grasp the concept. However, it is equally striking that though we have no way in which to intelligently express ourselves regarding the matter - we can still employ our imaginations and understand that such a state must exist/have existed/can yet exist.
Who is the Unmoved Mover and where did that which He moved, come from?
The answer is as plain as the scripture that He gave to us as a testament of Himself.
I don't accept biological evolution because I have faith it's the correct explanation for the diversity of life.
I accept evolution because of the powerful and rapidly growing molecular evidence for it.
The Resurrection requires faith, lots of faith.
Scientific facts like biological evolution which are supported by evidence from many branches of science, evidence which has been accumulating for 150 years and continues to grow rapidly, does not require faith.
Science is science, and religion is religion. These two completely different words should not be confused with each other. Science does not care what religion says. If a religion conflicts with a scientific fact, that's the religion's problem. Scientists could care less about ancient religious myths.
Religion as defined by Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:
"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."
Yep - you're religious!
HAWK49: "you are religious"
Non-religious people are religious?
Do you also think a circle is a square?
I flagged myself for typos - oops
The deluded man is a genius in his own mind. Everything that he sees around him is to him only further evidence of the correctness of his worldview. He's blissfully ignorant of the fact that he is locked within an institution of his own making - and utterly ignorant of the larger universe without.
He observes the light emanating from the fixture in his room and tries to wrap his mind around how it is that it gives light. However once he's satisfied himself of the fact the light exists and perhaps even the scientific explanation of it's nature and method of operation, he cannot expand his mind to consider that the light had a maker for the simple fact that he is unable to observe anyone else in his little room. Therefore by his logic, the light must have come into existence and is sustained of it's own accord.
Is he not deserving of derision who cannot fathom that someone must have created the light and sustains that light, even though he is currently unaware of how it is so or who that might be?
Break free of your self-made prisonl Howard.
Religious belief can be defined in one of two ways; substantive and functional. Your religious worldview is the functional variety; it's a belief system that establishes your values, motives and decisions. It's foundation is based on the philosophy of naturalism and uniformitarianism. Both unprovable assumptions that are used to tint the lenses of those attempting to make truth-claims from observations. My religious beliefs are founded on the reality of God's word.
Your religious worldview is some form of humanism from what I have determined; secular or marxist or a variant between the two. The Supremes have classified humanism a religion. The AHA reports to the IRS as a religious organization. The founders of humanism called it the "new" religion. What's the big deal, you are religious and you have chosen to believe the truth claims from science. This is known as scientism
Wolfgang Smith: "science is a doubled-edged sword. On the one hand there is scientific truth, a bona fide knowledge of a special kind; but that knowledge is accompanied in practice by a syndrome of philosophic assumptions which are generally mistaken for scientific truths. It became clear to me, moreover, in light of the metaphysical traditions, that these scientistic beliefs (as I call them) tend to be spurious, and deleterious to our spiritual well-being."
"The fundamentalists deny that evolution has taken place; they deny that the earth and the universe as a whole are more than a few thousand years old, and so on. There is ample scientific evidence that the fundamentalists are wrong in these matters, and that their notions of cosmogony have about as much basis in fact as the Tooth Fairy has."
[Isaac Asimov, quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt, by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996]
This is your problem: "That is the path I followed to finally accepting Christ."
Apparently you think accepting the science of biological evolution equals rejecting Christ.
Well, the religious implications of science is your problem, not mine. But you need to understand that if you want to join the rest of us here in the 21st century, you're going to have to either find some way to make your religion accommodate science, or you're going to have to throw out your religion, because science will never accommodate any religious belief.
"our respective religious worldviews"
According to you, my acceptance of the massive, overwhelming, and powerful evidence for evolution that has been accumulating for 150 years from many branches of science, is a religious worldview.
According to you, the science of biological evolution is religious.
You need to understand it's easier for people to communicate when they all use the dictionary definition of words. When you make up your own definitions for words like "religious", you harm your reputation.
Your idea that science is religious is as senseless as calling the Resurrection scientific.
"The evidence supporting macroevolution is wanting"
It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. How hard would it be to google "evolution evidence"? You would get about ten million websites. How hard is it to do your own research and make an effort to learn something?
Changing the definitions of words, and making false statements about scientific evidence, greatly damages your credibility.
Imagine somebody telling you the evidence for the earth's orbit around the sun is wanting. You would think he was an uneducated fool.
Well, guess what any biologist would think of your claim that the "evidence supporting macroevolution is wanting". The biologist would most certainly think you are uneducated and/or dishonest.
If you ever do decide to educate yourself, you will accomplish nothing if you only study what the liars for Jesus say. That's what creationists do. They avoid real scientists and only read what the liars say. The result is they learn nothing. They remain willfully ignorant for the rest of their lives.
Howard;
One more thing we have in common is we are both strongly committed to our respective religious worldviews
What is wrong with discussing Dawkins new revelation. He is honestly challenged, he exhausts his arguments for evolution and finally concedes that life may have been created by an Intelligent Designer. That is the path Antony Flew took. That is the path I followed to finally accepting Christ. The evidence supporting macroevolution is wanting and the hypothesis is shamefully protected by dogmatics. Signs that it is being relegated to the ash heep.
It would be wonderful, don't you agree, to see academic freedom finally open up for honest searching for the truth with respectful dialog between opposing views?
Have a blessed night
'"You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution."'
Yes, the true mark of intelligence. Unless one believes like himself, all others are ignorant. Howard... knowing that the picture was painted with oil does not tell how the painter lovingly painted the picture, or the time it took to make the masterpiece.
You admit at only looking at a piece of the painting (Biology), and stating arrogantly that it is impossible for there to be a painter. Yet you are missing the stroke of the brush (astronomy), the mixing of the paints (cosmology), the exhale of breath (elements), and the gentle touch to the canvas (microbiology) as the painter gently starts creating his masterpiece.
All the while you forget that you cannot see the painter, or the canvas, or the objects in the room, or the light radiating around anywhere else... because, you are in the painting and actually... part of the paint.
See the point is... until you can view from the outside looking in... to say that there is an impossibility is downright, absurd, and uneducated.
"You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution."
-- Richard Dawkins
The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
-- Richard Dawkins
HAWK, I think we can agree 1949 was a great year for the human race.
"That is why Dawkins could not fully support his belief in macroevolution and admit that life could have been created by an intelligent being."
You seem to have a strong preference for God's magic instead of the science of biological evolution. That's fine with me. I think you're wasting your life believing in nonsense, but that's your problem, not mine.
I would just like to respectfully request that you not use Dawkins to defend your magical creation.
That would be like me using a Baptist preacher to defend evolution.
Dude,
'A perfectly just man who had the power to intercede would not allow small children to be raped and murdered if he had the power to intercede.'
Such a flawed argument. Always using children as the example for how bad things can get. Children being raped and murdered is horrible, I agree. I wish that no child would ever face this kind of thing, yet, where is your story about parents killing their children or the mom's who choose to murder their child before they are even born?
Bad things do happen to people all the time. When people, who have free will and choices to make, do these types of things, they get what is coming to them. To say that bad things happening to decent people (notice how I did not call them 'good') calls for the non-existence of God leaves out the other side of the equation... the evil itself.
To have evil you must have an originator of evil, and to have good you must have an originator of good. We each have the capacity to do either, most of us choose the latter in various degrees. Sure, Sure... we give to those in need, we help those around us every once in a while, but these are generally done not to help the other person, but to make ourselves feel better somehow.
This is where free will comes into play. We have a choice, each of us. This is called Freedom. We have the Freedom to do good, or the opposite. We have the same choice to turn to God or to reject Him. If God interceded in everything and caused everything to not happen that would happen none of us would have a choice and none of us would learn from our experiences.
Using children is a low blow. No sane person wants bad things to happen to children. Yes, God sees all, hears all, and guess what... experienced all. The same way God doesn't shield us from everything is the same way we cannot shield our children from everything, even when they get older.
I suggest you read, 'Mere Christianity'... it answers this accusation and many more. To recognize evil and yet reject the good is just asinine.
Howard;
I suppose we do have one thing in common.....our age.
But I do find your reasoning flawed. The article quotes Dawkins saying "life created on earth" by an intelligient being, not cell transportation by space aliens. Francis Crick, a devout evolutionists, had to avoid the obvious by stating that "biologists must constantly keep in mind that what see was not designed.." Therefore he also chose the space aliens for life on earth.
Very few disagree that microevolution exists. But that is not the argument and basis for Expelled. The issue is about the dogma of macroevolution as it is not supported by the scientific method. It is based on the unproven philosophical belief of naturalism; All interpretations by the evolutionist are seen through the lens of naturalism. That is why Collins is reduced to his imagination and assumption that one just has to envision and extrapolate, after witnessing the microevolution events, the macroevolution changes from one species to another. There is no conclusive proof to this vision of Collins; just his imagination. That is why Dawkins could not fully support his belief in macroevolution and admit that life could have been created by an intelligent being. That is why Antony Flew abandoned his entire atheist career and accepted the theory of intelligent design as the evidence, logic and reasoning supports it better than the unproven concept of macroevolution.
What you contend is "scientific fact" is better understood to be scientists' interpretations of observations through the naturalist lens. This is a belief system; a religion that only offers biased results.
you can add that in as well but the result is the same. A perfectly just man who had the power to intercede would not allow small children to be raped and murdered if he had the power to intercede. If such man had the knowledge and ability to intercede and did not he would be an accessory just as guilty as the perpetrator. A perfectly just god, if omnipotent has the ability to intercede no matter the circumstance. The fact that he does not makes him unjust and and an accessory. Your next argument will probably be one of the following 1. it is all part of god's plan 2. the child is better off where ever they are 3. who are we to question god 4. it is all a test by god or one of hundreds of other flawed arguments. There are rebuttals to each of them.
You forgot one.
God is perfectly just.
Changes your whole formula.
Exercising a little logic here.
Assumption (1): God exists.
Assumption (1a): God is all-knowing.
Assumption (1b): God is all-powerful.
Assumption (1c): God is perfectly loving.
Assumption (1d): Any being that did not possess all three of the above properties would not be God.
Premise (2): Evil exists.
Premise (3): An all-knowing being would be aware of the existence of evil.
Premise (4): An all-powerful being would be able to eliminate evil.
Premise (5): A perfectly loving being would desire to eliminate evil.
Conclusion (6): Evil does not exist. (from (1),(3),(4),(5))
Contradiction: But evil does exist. (from (2))
Conclusion (7): There is no being that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly loving. (from (2),(3),(4),(5))
Conclusion (8): God does not exist. (from (7),(1d))
"However, for someone to be a true atheist, they must have all the facts or they are merely hoping that everyone else is just plain wrong. To say with the utmost certainty that God cannot possibly exist you would need to have all the facts. You would need to know the entire history of the universe to make such a wild assumption. This is where agnostics in my opinion trump atheists, they at least, leave open the possibility."
The words "a wild assumption" got my attention.
I thought it was the theists who are making the wild assumptions. They are the ones who are making the wild claim there's a God (and countless other wild assumptions like the Resurrection and creationism).
Nobody could know the entire history of the universe and that's a good thing. It means there will always be more to learn and that's what makes science so exciting.
You might be interested to know I have less respect for agnostics than I do for theists. Theists have at least made a decision. They made the wrong decision but it's much better to be wrong than be wishy-washy like an agnostic.
This is my logic for completely ruling out the God idea. First of all, to me God is just another word for magic (sorry, I know you don't much care for that word). Magic to me is just plain nutty.
My entire life I have noticed there's always a reason for everything. I don't always know what the reason is, but I know there's a reason for it. Whatever the reason is, I know there was nothing magical or supernatural about it. How do I know this? Because whenever I successfully figured something out, the cause was always natural, not supernatural.
If I don't understand some scientific fact, I know I need to educate myself. Somebody else might say "That looks impossible to me, so it must have been a miracle." I could never say that. I could never believe in a miracle. Even if I wanted to choose that easy answer, I could never do it. I understand that miracles are impossible and I know that the impossible could never happen.
There was a press conference the other day at Los Angeles zoo.
Representative of the resident baboons and chimpanzee are denying any relation to the late Mr. Charles Darwin.
Howard,
'While complaining about me'
I have nothing to complain about, I tend to be as thick headed as I am thick skinned. So now worries on that front.
'I've heard this idea before many times. Many Christians claim atheists, who don't believe in God, hate God. I have never understood this logic. I'm just not able to figure out how a person could hate something he is certain does not exist.'
Wow, a true atheist. Rare breed indeed... I respect that.
I can respect the fact that you believe not in the existence of a God or gods. I suppose you would admit though that if anything, biology would be your guiding principle and therefore science rules above all else. Like I said, I can respect that. I may not agree with you, but I do respect your position.
However, for someone to be a true atheist, they must have all the facts or they are merely hoping that everyone else is just plain wrong. To say with the utmost certainty that God cannot possibly exist you would need to have all the facts. You would need to know the entire history of the universe to make such a wild assumption. This is where agnostics in my opinion trump atheists, they at least, leave open the possibility.
You brought up gravity in one of your replies... I believe general relativity would come next... would you believe that the universe to use is huge, enormous even... definitely has shape and depth... almost round even... however, we have learned that the universe is actually flat. According to general and special relativity, which is the most tested principle in science, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot begin on its own. Life on this beautiful planet of ours has a beginning... what caused it?
Someone brought up DNA earlier in this little debate... did you know that DNA is basically a 4-bit computer code? We could not and would not exist without it. Every single cell depends on DNA for the formation, direction, etc. Even with the study of the human genome we still do not fully understand how DNA does what it does. If SETI received DNA information from space they would proclaim as loud as they could that they have indeed found intelligent life...
Yet when we find information within ourselves, we dismiss it as biological chance.
Hello zenodaddy.
"Why waste your time with us... magic lovers?"
Excellent question. I could be watching a movie on HBO, or playing chess on the internet, or taking a walk outside in the wonderful warm nights we have here in Florida. Instead I'm spending my time trying to explain the joy of biology to people who don't seem very interested in science. I suppose it's fair to say I'm wasting my time, but watching TV is also a waste of time.
While complaining about me you said "Everything we believe is a magic trick while what you believe is based on solid scientific fact."
Would you like me to use the word miracle instead of magic trick? I don't see any difference, but to get along better I could call your nonsense miracles if you prefer that.
"I think your hatred for God is far more personal than anything scientific."
I've heard this idea before many times. Many Christians claim atheists, who don't believe in God, hate God. I have never understood this logic. I'm just not able to figure out how a person could hate something he is certain does not exist.
I think some Christians say this (atheists hate God) because for them they just can't imagine how anyone could not believe in God. They are so hopelessly brainwashed to believe there has to be a God, it's impossible for them to believe atheists exist.
Please let me explain something about atheists. I talking about real atheists like myself, not some wishy-washy agnostic. Real atheists are convinced that all gods are just inventions of primitive ancient humans who knew nothing about science. Real atheists are certain a God in the sky is as improbable as an old fat man with a red suit and a white beard living at the North Pole. Atheists just can't imagine a supernatural creature hiding in the clouds, or wherever theists think this thing hangs out.
"You care not for cosmology, probably because deep down the issue of origins is as scary as the existence of God. If you care nothing for the origin of mankind, nor the origin for the universe or how it came to be..."
I'm a little interested in the beginning of the universe and how stars and planets form, but my time is limited and I'm extremely interested in the history of life so I spend more time learning about biological evolution. Nothing scares me except the stock market.
Hello HAWK49.
I'm wondering, why did you choose the number 49 to be part of your blog name? Were you born in 1949, or does 49 have some other meaning for you? I ask because I was born in 1949.
You talked about "evolutionary dogma". Would you say something like "gravity dogma"? Probably not. The words evolutionary and dogma don't belong in the same sentence. Like gravity, evolution happens. Evolution is a fact, and like gravity it has tons of evidence. The protestant creationists don't have any idea how powerful and overwhelming the evidence for evolution is. If only there was some way to educate people who are not interested in learning.
Dawkins was asked if he could imagine any scenario where intelligent design would make sense. Dawkins, being the scientist that he is, considered the question to be a challenge, so he suggested the idea that aliens from another planet could have come here, bringing with them some bacteria or whatever so life could get started on this planet. Dawkins pointed out the alien species would have developed on their planet just like humans developed here, thanks to the mechanisms of evolution.
It's a dumb idea in my opinion. The distances between solar systems is too vast for even an advanced alien species to travel that far. Dawkins would agree his idea is extremely improbable.
It's important to remember that simple living cells can develop very easily when the conditions are favorable. I can't imagine a planet like earth, with its massive water supply and favorable climate, not having any life. It seems to me that it would be virtually impossible for life to NOT develop on a planet like earth.
Howard,
I have come across your type many, many times in the past 7 years. Always throwing insults at those who do not conform to your way of thinking. Everything we believe is a magic trick while what you believe is based on solid scientific fact. It is both sad and somewhat pathetic... really.
To not agree with someone else is one of our basic freedoms my friend. I have not insulted you, , nor called you ignorant. I think your hatred for God is far more personal than anything scientific. You merely drink the tea that is the best escape.
With saying that... you my friend have yet to offer any proof for evolution. You care not for cosmology, probably because deep down the issue of origins is as scary as the existence of God. If you care nothing for the origin of mankind, nor the origin for the universe or how it came to be, why do you care about any of this anyhow? Why waste your time with us... magic lovers?
Howard
Ben Stein may not be a scientist, but he does know when academic freedom is breached and evolutionary dogma run amok. This is what his film is about. He lets the scientists from both sides speak to the science.
Now Howard, what can you say about Dawkins admission that life on earth may have been created by an intelligent being?
"Dawkins finds himself at a logical impasse with no surplus of sci-fi rhetoric. He's finally forced to concede that, indeed, an intelligent being may have created life on earth. However, that being could not have been "God," but rather, it must have been some organic, alien life form."
Gosh, a leading militant evolutionist making this admission against the 150 years of evolutionary evidence. Looks like that evidence you site is not very convincing to all scientists; even for Dawkins.
If you guys don't like evolution, would you like to provide evidence for magical creation?
Please remember your misconceptions about science are not evidence for magic. Also, your Bible and your wishful thinking are not evidence for magic.
I also would like to remind you that we are now living in the 21st century. By now the human race should have figured out magic is too ridiculous to consider. Apparently some people are a few centuries behind the rest of us.
A creationist might complain "What God does isn't magic, it's (whatever)."
Sorry, but if you're going to claim God can create a creature out of nothing, I'm going to call it a magic trick.
Howard;
I noticed you continue to insult the integrity and competence of the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, who is noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes.
It is not I that insults his integrity...Collins has done it himself. He may be a sucessful director of a department.......but he is a miserable (or biased) interpreter of the data to presume his evolutionary conclusions are fact.
"What Collins doesn’t mention is that the DNA data often lead to conflicting phylogenies. For example, his evolutionary tree in The Language of God shows flying lemurs related to tree shrews, and rabbits and monkeys on more distant branches. But a phylogeny published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA in 2002 shows flying lemurs related to monkeys and tree shrews related to rabbits. Conflicts among different DNA-based trees are a major headache for evolutionary biologists, some of whom spend their entire careers attempting to resolve them.
Not only can phylogenies constructed with DNA conflict with each other, but they can also conflict with phylogenies based on morphology. Take whales, for example – fossils of which Collins asserts are “consistent with the concept of a tree of life of related organisms....” The conflict between morphological and molecular phylogenies continues, and the problem is bigger than whales. In 2007, British scientists analyzed 181 molecular and 49 morphological trees and observed that “molecular and morphological phylogenies often seem to be at odds with each other.” Clearly, as a general statement, Collins’s claim that DNA trees are strikingly similar to trees drawn from comparative anatomy is false.
“I think you should spend less time studying theology, which is a bunch of words about nothing, and more time studying biology.”
That’s a load, especially considering Biology is not even the king of the sciences.
“Scientists are absolutely certain these two species share a common ancestor... it's outrageous that Christians are trying to suppress the teaching of evolution and/or trying to stick their God magic in there.”
I hear a lot of skeptics trying to accuse Christians and even proponents of I.D. of positing a ‘magic man’ or ‘god of the gaps.’ Truth is while it may be that there is a common genome linkage, that only leads to common decent; it does not demonstrate the efficacy of natural selection coupled with random genetic mutations together producing more highly complex species.
Assuming Neo-Darwinism to conclude naturalism at the expense of truth is a bit disingenuous in itself.
(I flagged myself)
A Sidney Harris cartoon has two scientists standing before a chalkboard. One scientist has written down a long scientific explanation for some idea he has. The 2nd scientist is reviewing his work and he sees on the chalkboard "Then a miracle occurs". He tells the 1st scientist "I think you should be more explicit here in step two."
http://www.scienceteecher.com/miracle.htm
"the earth is extremely old (4.5 +/- billion years old)"
"Yes, we know that Micro evolution does occur, however, it is merely adaptation. We have not seen Macro evolution to occur and maybe never will."
This is when a lack of education combined with religious brainwashing makes a person say things that make no sense.
I'm not saying you're uneducated, but I think you should spend less time studying theology, which is a bunch of words about nothing, and more time studying biology.
Do you seriously think there could be almost 4 billion years of life on this planet with no new species developing? Do you think there's some invisible barrier that makes evolution come to a complete stop before a species starts looking too different from its ancient ancestor?
Since nobody has lived 5 million years, there was no witness to the very gradual development of modern humans from their ape-like ancestors. But scientists can see the results of the development of the human species by comparing the human genome to their closest living cousins, the chimpanzees. Scientists are absolutely certain these two species share a common ancestor. They can see the history of the development of both species in their DNA. If you deny these facts for religious reasons, then you are giving your religion a terrible reputation. If you deny these facts because you don't understand the evidence then you need to study it. Certainly you shouldn't completely ignore the work of thousands of biologists.
I'm not interested in cosmology so I really don't care if you want to invoke magic for it. I'm more interested in biology, and I don't much care for the Christian war against biology education. The facts of evolution have so much evidence it's outrageous that Christians are trying to suppress the teaching of evolution and/or trying to stick their God magic in there.
Actually... for evolution to be the way that things 'evolved' would be the greater miracle indeed... because mathematically and reasonably, it is impossible. Before evolution can even be considered the issue of the origin must be concluded and as of yet, your agnostic friends have no idea how life started. The primordial soup theory was thrown out years ago since the early earth was devastated time and time again by comet and meteor impacts that would wipe out life as a whole repeatedly.
On top of that, the earliest life was formed around 3.8 billion years ago, which even according to evolution is in fact impossible because evolution requires an infinite amount of time to even happen... and as we all know... this universe we call home had a beginning, and eventually... it will end as well.
Howard, Howard, Howard...
Look man, everyone is biased in some fashion or another; you just so happen to believe that nothing hit the ball to cause it to fly across the field...
To say that God did it is in fact not lazy as you repeatedly say. We neither stop investigating the how of something because we already know the answer -- even if we are given the answer, we must still figure out HOW it was done.
Wishful thinking... on that note... how can someone or something wish, or even think by chance.
As I said before... through studying science and theology, I have come to my conclusion, not from anyone else's opinions. What is your story? How did you come up with the definite article and proclamation that God does not exist?
you see... I just do not have enough faith to be an atheist.
Magic? That would be like pulling a man out of an ape, right?
"it was miraculous"
Then it was a magic trick, according to you. That sounds like very wild guessing.
Not fully understanding something does not mean it was miraculous. Wild claims require powerful evidence, and no claim could be more wild than invoking a miracle.
I think you are letting your wishful thinking cloud your judgement. Do you understand why invoking a miracle is not science? It's not science because it makes new discoveries impossible. How is any problem going to be solved when somebody says "Let's not bother looking further because God did it."?
"The Big Bang theory does in fact state that something came from nothing."
I don't understand why you would say "a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature" is nothing.
Howard,
Cosmology to me ranks in importance to the understanding of God as much as theology. Theology is what I study the most, however, cosmology comes in at a close second. The people I look up to the most are astronomers, theologians and scholars. One of those people, a member of the Royal Astronomical Society in London, astronomer for over 40 years and currently working on the Lunar Dome Project (as the Director no less) is also a theologian.
These people believe much like I do, that the universe is extremely old (15.4+/- billion years old), the earth is extremely old (4.5 +/- billion years old), however, we also believe in the Genesis Creation Event spelled out in Genesis 1 and 2.
It is not, as you say, being lazy, to say that God must have done it -- we have each spent years studying the subject. Myself have studied Cosmology and Astronomy along with Theology to come to the conclusion that God could in fact exist and that Jesus could in fact be who He claimed to be.
Yes, we know that Micro evolution does occur, however, it is merely adaptation. We have not seen Macro evolution to occur and maybe never will.
The Big Bang theory does in fact state that something came from nothing. Somehow, someway, in an instant in the distant past, the universe started to expand with space, time, energy and matter in a perfect sequence. The Big Bang was not an explosion -- it was miraculous. There was a news article back I believe in 1998 or 1999 that proclaimed that many of the worlds cosmologists were joining the Church of the Big Bang en mass. Cosmology deals with the origins of the universe, how it developed, and how it will continue to expand.
Do not merely stop listening to someone because they claim that someone actually hit the ball. Some of us have actually studied long enough to realize, scientifically and reasonably that the ball cannot be floating through mid-air on its own and that someone or something had to cause it to move the way it does.
The Big Bang you see... must have had a cause. Something without a cause in time is not something at all. Even if you claim it is all an illusion... something must have caused the illusion my friend.
zenodaddy, I don't know much about cosmology, but I don't remember any scientist saying something developed from nothing.
big bang theory: "A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature."
"a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature" does not equal nothing.
Where did this matter come from? There is no way of answering that question. This is where scientists say "I don't know" and religious people make the wild guess "God did it".
The insertion of God before the big bang is a lazy answer that solves nothing, and this wild guess could never have any evidence. The only honest answer to this question is "I don't know".
It's even worse to invoke God for anything after the big bang. Nature does an excellent job of taking care of itself. Scientists have answered a lot of questions about how solar systems form and how life develops. Over the next thousands of years more questions will be answered. If everyone chose the lazy option, invoking God's magic, those questions would never be answered. This is why God was a terrible invention. Invoking a supernatural God makes human progress come to a complete stop.
You see howard... everyone is watching the same baseball game... Christians know that there is a batter who just swung at the ball and it is now flying across the field... we know that the center fielder is about to catch the ball in mere seconds... however, agnostics and atheists watching the same game are arguing what hit the ball and coming up with theories on how the ball could be flying into the outfield all on its own.
It is much like watching a game but missing the point when the batter actually hit the ball -- people who have actually watched a game before, or at least have heard about the game knows that a ball cannot fly across the field unless someone hits the ball.
When it comes to the Big Bang -- we know that the universe is rapidly expanding -- from a single point -- now, something cannot come from nothing, we know this -- however, cosmologists say, 'I don't know' not because of ignorance, but because of the implications of the answer.
You see.... for something to move forward, it had to be moved, thrown or hit. We Christians tuned into the game at the same time as the agnostics and atheists... we know what hit the ball to cause it to fly so high and far, while your crowd is wasting time trying to come up with theories on how the ball could possibly and theoretically be created and fly on its own.
@ Howard
'Most people would agree that making a person out of nothing is one heck of a magic trick.'
Kind of like causing something to form out of nothing eh Howard? The Big Bang comes to mind... I accept the Big Bang event... do you?
"the universe begins......... all by itself."
There's a lot to be said for saying "I don't know".
For how the universe began, and what was there before the big bang, scientists say "I don't know" because there is no way of knowing this stuff.
"I don't know" is a lot more honest than saying "God did it". Invoking God has never solved any problem. It just creates a new problem, the origin of God. Saying "God had no beginning" is meaningless.
It's better to ignore unanswerable questions instead of making wild guesses.
For what happened after the big bang, scientists can and have answered many questions, including how new solar systems developed, a process that continues today throughout the vast universe. There is still no consensus about how the first living cells developed, but after life got a foothold, scientists now have an excellent understanding of what happened next, and they will continue to make new scientific discoveries that better and more fully explain the 3 billion year history of life.
Anyway - it's been a hoot Howie but I gotta run. Life calls, as does supper - and it's not just going to evolve from the contents of my fridge. (although something else may happen if I let it sit too long in there - ewwwwwww)
Hope to chat again later.
Make sure and read your Bible while I'm gone and I'll answer some more questions for you when I get back.
God bless you!
:)
Actually - it's nothing like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. That's called sleight of hand.
You don't believe in magic, do you Howard?
Oh wait - you do. One instant no universe - no nothing, next instant BIG BANG! - the universe begins......... all by itself. MAGIC!
Not
hmm - study evolution.
Sorry - been there - done there.
Not convinced.
You don't have to explain it to me. I understand it quite clearly - ad nauseum, in fact.
It's just not credible.
And appealing to "religious scientists" doesn't impress me either. Your doing so, tells me that you don't understand the first thing about God.
"Religion" is a pile of garbage made up by man trying to get to God.
On the other hand faith in God is something that he gives to us! It's not about what WE do. Nothing about our relationship with God is about us trying to get to Him. If it is we're wasting our time.
He already made a way to Him for us. There is only that one way that is valid and that is Jesus Christ. God says so.
So you know what I think of your "religious scientists" - nada! They are scientists who are practicing religion - and all the "practicing" in the world isn't going to get them anywhere.
In the mean time, excuse me if I get a little irritated by all the pseudo-scientists on the Discovery channel ruining a what might otherwise be an interesting documentary about history, by interjecting their sloppy evolutionary theories to explain everything that they don't have the facts on yet. Just tell me what we DO know - and leave your evolution magic out of it!
It's no wonder so many people believe in this drivel. No critical thinking skills!~ They're not able to assess something for themselves. Instead they gobble up this force-fed evolution tripe!
"God isn't 'magical'. He is all-powerful."
Most people would agree that making a person out of nothing is one heck of a magic trick. It's a lot like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
As for "magic" you can save that for your puddle of "evolving" slime.
God isn't "magical". He is all-powerful. You've heard the term omnipotent right? That's what it means.
Psalm 62:11 "God has spoken plainly, and I have heard it many times: Power, O God, belongs to you" God and power are so inseparable, Power is alos used as a name of God!
Mark 14:61b-62a "Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him,Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I AM: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of Power..."
I really don't mean to play the "my God is bigger than your god" game with you - because you're at a distinct disadvantage. Are you sure you want to continue?
"So it huffed and puffed and 'poof' created for itself..."
Quecat, the evolution of life is a long and very gradual process that has taken more than 3 billion years. No creature makes decisions about how their species will evolve. Evolution is guided by natural selection. In other words, qualities that make survival more likely are passed on to the next generation while other creatures don't survive and don't pass on their genes. Billions of small changes accumulate and eventually new species and new features appear. It's an extremely gradual process.
I suggest you study evolution. It's very interesting. You will find out why thousands of religious scientists completely accept the scientific explanation for the diversity of life.
Oh Howie - now you're just not reading what I've already posted. Very sloppy. Come on, buck up! I already answered that question. Do I have to re-write it in bigger letters for you?
I'm reading this again and really trying to contain my laughter.
Do you read this mess?
It really does sound more like a Saturday morning cartoon. But Howard calls it "science."
Whatever, my friend. I suppose if that's what it takes to float your boat.....
But honestly, you just sound silly.
Who's the one proposing "magical" processes now?
The universe "popped" into existence on it's own - sure.
Life "evolved" - sure
and someday the garbage in my trash can given enough time, heat, light, kind words, whatever - is going to coalesce autonomously into a skyscraper or a jumbo jet.
You're one confused man.
You need God, my friend.
Oh, whoops. I forgot Adam was magically created so of course he didn't have any sisters. My mistake. Thanks for the correction.
So the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve were the parents of the 3rd generation. Brothers and sisters having children together sounds like incest to me. According to the creationists incest is a good thing. At least it was OK back in the magical creation days.
By the way does God still do any magically creating or did it retire?
Yeah - that whole asexual thing. I guess it works for amoeba. I've never seen a person manage it. Soooo - we "evolved". sure. okay.
The storry goes like this, right?
One day an asexual something-or-other decided it would be better off hooking up with another something-or-other in order to create a baby-something-or-other. So it huffed and puffed and "poof" created for itself some sex organs that produce either eggs or sperm. Then it waddled (or whatever something-or-others do to move) over to it's potential mate's house and convinced him/her/it to huff and puff and create some complimentary sexual organs so they could get down and get funky and make that baby something-or-other.
yeah.
i'm with you on that.
let me know how that turns out.
What was the question?
@ Howard...
'please explain where the 3rd generation came from. '
If you would have looked around the site I asked you to earlier explore, you would have had this question answered for you... in the mathematical sense -- but alas... you did not look at all did you? Tsk Tsk
Come-on Howard - now you're just being lazy.
Give me a hard question.
Genesis 5:4-10 says that Adam and Eve have another son named Seth after which they continued to have more sons and daughters. Seth has sons and daughters. His son Enos has sons and daughters. His son Cainan has sons and daughters.
That's an awful lot of sons and daughters running around. It's not hard to see that pretty soon you've got a whole lot of people making a whole lot more people.
And no - Adam still doesn't have a sister. If you want to be a smart-aleck - you really should be a little smarter about it.
Shall we try again?
Quecat, the first living cells were asexual. Sexual reproduction evolved later.
asexual: Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction that occurs without the union of male and female gametes, as in binary fission or budding.
The natural world is a wonderful thing, Quecat. Nothing could be more interesting than figuring out the history of life without invoking magic to explain it.
Quecat, since you seem to be an expert about the first human family, please explain where the 3rd generation came from. According to you there were no sisters and no incest with the mother.
I will patiently wait for your explanation for who were the parents of the 3rd generation. Was there more magical creation of people?
hmmm, let's see - God created man. Understanding that God is god-like and therefore has all knowledge, it would seem reasonable that whatever He created would have whatever characteristics He desired. He told Adam and Eve to procreate and having as yet bodies that were without degradation, there would be no inherent risk in siblings having offspring - in fact, the implication that such was necessary is quite plain.
But as is the case in this fallen world (owing to the introduction of sin), things fall apart and decay as time progresses (a little fact that evolutionists can't seem to come to terms with).
When I make a photocopy, it isn't the same quality as the original. And when I make a photocopy of that copy, it comes out a poorer quality than that which it is an image of. Dust on the lens, a scratch on the plate glass, a little less toner here, too much there.. and over time, with repeated copying, I have a copy that's nowhere near the quality of the original document.
Did I say photocopy? Of course, I meant people. Our bodies are imperfect, that much is obvious. Hence, the societal taboo against incest. Such relations risk the transmittal of recessive genes that may manifest themselves in the unfortunate offspring.
Now as a thinking, smart scientific type, surely you can appreciate that concept?
Fact of the matter is - incest as we know it is only a result of societal prohibitions that arose in to answer the problem of manifested transmission of mutated and damaged genes - a problem that would not have existed with Adam and Eve and their immediate progeny.
As for your assertion that evolution doesn't require "incest" - think again. Unless your two originating creatures somehow popped into existence at the same time, utterly separate of each other instead of deriving one from another, they most certainly procreated in an incestual manner at some point.
That's the problem with evolutionists - they just don't think!
oh - and Adam didn't have a sister.
sorry - was that a trick question?
Yup - sure thing.
Two polly-wogs from two unrelated puddles of slime jumped onto dry land and struck up a romance. (no incest there, you know). Next thing you know - a jillion years later here we are arguing about how it is the slime turned into polly-wogs while ignoring the fact that even the slime would have had to have come from SOMEWHERE!
Oh yeah - I forgot - evolutionist's can support their argument so long as the first source of life is omitted from the equation. They have no answer for the "unmoved mover".
Are you denying there was incest between Adam and his sister?
One nice thing about evolution is incest is not required.
Howard - if I were to write to you that I have a son named John and a son named Michael, with the intent of relating an incident about these two boys, would you assume that I have only two sons?
I did not mention my son, James nor my daughter Bethany because they were not involved in the storyline that I intended to pass on. However, you've assumed incorrectly that I only have two offspring.
You have also incorrectly assumed that Cain and Able were Adam and Eve's only children. Your logic has failed you. Perhaps because your anti-God, anti-bible, anti-Christian bigotry has blinded you.
Rom 1:22 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,..."
Rom 1:16 "... I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth"
Scripture tells us that we are thoroughly incapable (within our own power) of performing a single work which can find acceptance with a holy God (Rom 3:10-18). We are called to recognize that we have sinned before an absolutely holy and just God and to understand that we are deserving of death (Rom 3:23). But God in His infinite grace and mercy paid that penalty for us! Jesus Christ took our sins upon himself on the cross and as a result our sin debt was paid (John 3:16) By God's Spirit we are led to sorrow for our sin and urged to turn from our old ways. This is repentance. In believing that Christ died for us and placing Him in His rightful position as Lord of our lives, we are given new and eternal life. God looks at us and ascribes to us Christ's righteousness.
I know in Whom I have trusted and I know what happens to me after I die. I have a Living Hope and a "peace which surpasses all understanding".
Do you?
religonstudent: "Did Cain sleep with eve"
Isn't it interesting that the protestant extremists who believe in magical creation also have to believe incest is a good thing.
You are correct about their "BLIND faith".
wow - religionstudent - where to start?
I don't know whose student you are, but you should really get a better teacher. All the questions that you've posed are pretty elementary. Not meaning this as a slam, but simply matter of fact: you come across as a cynical know-it-all eighteen year old who really doesn't have a clue. Congratulations to the public school systems for turning out such quality.
I would suggest that you spend less time "studying religion" and spend more time in heartfelt prayer and reading scripture with understanding in order to learn about God. Of course, that presupposes that you understand and have embraced the Gospel of Christ.
If you've not even done that, then there is an entirely different and ultimately more important conversation that needs to take place - one upon which the fate of your everlasting soul depends.
Without Christ in your heart and the Holy Spirit as your guide, the Bible is going to seem pretty much meaningless to you. You're not going to understand it.
I have to ask all you jesus loving folk out there.Have you read the bible in what it was written in.you know Hebrew and Latin .If not then i suggest that you do.Do you understand that you are reading someone elses fears and prejudice in their translation.Please tell me who cain married in genesis.If Adam and eve were the first humans and they only had 2 sons and one was killed then that leaves Cain ,Adam and eve.Did Cain sleep with eve .if so then that means we are all inbred.Do you people understand that when the bible was written the had no idea what a volcano was or an earthquake. to them it was and act of god.but now we know how earthquakes happen.And if we all came from adam and eve then how come we have the chinise who have been around as long as the jews have.Do you people understand that there are several books that were left out of the old and new testament.Of course not you have BLIND faith.Well i am sorry but when the blind lead the blind you are bound to walk off of a cliff.So go ahead and spew you hate fill comments.remember Jesus says to love the neighbor weather the agree with you or not.
HAWK: "wild laughter"
Some people are easily entertained. For example small children watching cartoons on TV, or creationists watching a boring anti-science propaganda movie starring an actor who knows nothing about science.
HAWK: "Collins is using imagination and assumptions here"
I noticed you continue to insult the integrity and competence of the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, who is noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes.
What have you, HAWK, contributed to scientific progress? Oh, right. Nothing. You're not even a scientist. Yet you think you know more about molecular biology than every molecular biologist in the world.
And what idea do you prefer instead of biological evolution?
Magical creation. You have decided to reject mountains of powerful evidence that have been accumulating for 150 years and replace it all with magic. To believe in magical creation, you have to accuse tens of thousands of scientists, including thousands of religious scientists, of being dishonest and incompetent. You have to claim you know more about science than the top scientists of the world who work at places like MIT and Harvard.
Look it HAWK. Believe in magic and reject modern science all you want. I don't care. Just please keep your anti-science ideas out of our schools. The American population is already way behind the rest of the Western world in science education. There's no point in making the disgraceful ignorance of Americans even worse, just because some uneducated people want to replace biology with protestant creationism.
Here is a excerpt from "Expelled" that will show how empty the Darwinian evolution hypothesis is:
After dancing around several pointed questions about how life began, Dawkins finds himself at a logical impasse with no surplus of sci-fi rhetoric. He's finally forced to concede that, indeed, an intelligent being may have created life on earth. However, that being could not have been "God," but rather, it must have been some organic, alien life form. Of course, that alien life form has to have been a product of "Darwinian evolution."
Through tears of wild laughter, audience members watch as Dawkins - apparently grasping the dizzying nature of his own circular argument - turns three shades of red and becomes purply tight-lipped.
Howard; Collins is using imagination and assumptions here:
"Collins cites a Stanford University study of stickleback fish. Marine sticklebacks typically have armor plates .., but many freshwater sticklebacks lack such plates, and biologists have found a correlation between this difference and variations in the gene for Ectodysplasin (EDA), a molecule involved in the formation of the plates. Collins concludes: “It is not hard to see how the difference between freshwater and saltwater sticklebacks could be extended to generate all kinds of fish. The distinction between macroevolution and microevolution is therefore seen to be rather arbitrary; larger changes that result in new species are a result of a succession of smaller incremental steps.”
But marine and freshwater sticklebacks are merely varieties of the same species, Gasterosteus aculeatus. There is no evidence here that variations in their gene for EDA would (or even could) lead to the origin of a new species, much less to the new organs or major changes in body plans needed for macroevolution.
diluted?
Howard, just because you turn you back on God and say he isn't there doesn't make him any less then what he is. You can stand there and say that all christians or believers in God are diluted all you want but it is not me that is lying to myself, you should look into the mirror about who is dishonest...
HAWK: "you can visit Discovery Institute, Answers In Genesis or ICR and find many highly qualified research scientists in all fields, including biology and microbiology, who support either Intelligent Design or Creation science."
You listed 3 well known Christian creationist organizations. They are famous for their dishonesty and their incompetence. You should not be calling these people research scientists because they have never in their entire lives done any research. They just wait for a real scientist to announce some scientific discovery, then they immediately start lying about it. They are certainly not highly qualified. I wouldn't even call them scientists. Whatever they are, the entire scientific community laughs at their hopeless incompetence and they are disgusted with the dishonesty of these Christian organizations.
It is totally wrong to use the words intelligent design, creation, and science in the same sentence. These are religious ideas. They most certainly are not scientific because like I said earlier, scientists can't test God and miracles.
HAWK: "Some are Christians, others of other faiths and some are even agnostics. They have obviously taken the intellectually honest path and followed where the most compelling evidence has lead as the facts of evolution just aren't there as proclaimed."
This "some are even agnostics" is dishonest. An agnostic does not invoke God. Also, no real scientist would agree these people are "intellectually honest".
HAWK: "So Collins defends Darwin’s theory by assuming that microevolution can be extrapolated to macroevolution, and by assuming that certain segments of DNA have no function despite growing evidence that they do."
It's called "biological evolution", not "Darwin's theory". Collins assumes nothing. It doesn't matter if ERVs have any function or not. They were inserted in the common ancestor of the two species that inherited them. With all due respect I think you have a lot of nerve to claim you understand molecular evidence better than Collins who is the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. He's also very religious so I would expect you to show him some respect instead of questioning his competence and integrity. Unlike your fake scientists, Collins has done some major research and has made major contributions to scientific progress. I'm amazed you think you know more about his career than he does.
Adam: "But if you're wrong about Jesus, there is no second chance."
Adam, I have some friendly advice for you. When you threaten an atheist with your mythical Jesus, the atheist is going to laugh at you, and he's going to ignore everything else you say because he will be convinced you are a total waste of time. I'm telling you this not to criticize you. I'm just saying you will be more effective if you don't threaten people with the wrath of God when they think your God is total nonsense.
Howey,
Yeah, we're doing nicknames now. I read your post about not believing in the supernatural. I understand that it looks like the safest bet to go with the cold hard facts of science. Science won't let you down or make you look foolish.
Here's the thing, and I bet you already know this, but Christianity claims that there is A LOT hanging in the balance of what we choose to put our faith in in this life. Its founder, Jesus, said that our eternal destination depends completely upon whether or not we accept Him as the Son of God and accept the mercy He offered by dying in our stead.
I'm saying this, and I hope you're listening. If you're wrong about science, no big deal, make a new hypothesis. But if you're wrong about Jesus, there is no second chance. I just want you to feel the weight of that, even though you sound totally confident that you have nothing to fear.
What if, after our lifetimes, in 300 years or so, a new discovery is made that completely crumbles evolution? It has happened constantly with science throughout the centuries.
But listen. Here is my strong/loving advice to you. If I were you, I would spend everything I had making sure that the supernatural truly doesn't exist. Understand? I would search out every phenomena, every claim, everything. Make sure, because you have staked your eternity on the fact that there is no spiritual world. Please do not leave it to chance, and don't be set at ease by counterfeiters who pretend that they touch supernatural things.
And if you come across even one spritual/supernatural occurence that you feel to be legitimate, then I beg you, slam the brakes on the idea that our lives are just mistakes. Even just one spiritual encounter changes everything about the landscape of our existence. Understand?
Hey, as far as most religions are concerned, you're good just the way you are. Hinduism, Buddhism, even with Islam you're still on track to make heaven at some point (just make sure you don't call Jesus the Son of God, because that's the only offense that Allah never forgives). Chrisitanity is the one you have to watch out for. It's one of the only ones that says there is only ONE way to inherit eternal life. Forget the rest, you're in good shape with all of them. Jesus is the one Man that could change everything, though.
All the religions of the world are a marketplace of ideas about who God is and why we're here. Christianity is the only religion that claims it's Idea became Fact. God came down to the earth and lived among us! Search it out, and don't quit until you've exhausted all options. If Jesus said that you have to be pure of heart to see God, then by all means, figure out how to get pure of heart and see if He shows up! The stakes are high enough to explore every possibility. And you can do it in the privacy of your own home. I hope you're hearing the tenderness in this. I mean it.
Good.
Howard and Ifeelfine; you can visit Discovery Institute, Answers In Genesis or ICR and find many highly qualified research scientists in all fields, including biology and microbiology, who support either Intelligent Design or Creation science. Some are Christians, others of other faiths and some are even agnostics. They have obviously taken the intellectually honest path and followed where the most compelling evidence has lead as the facts of evolution just aren't there as proclaimed.
Howard, you call this science and facts? Assuming and extrapolating? So Collins defends Darwin’s theory by assuming that microevolution can be extrapolated to macroevolution, and by assuming that certain segments of DNA have no function despite growing evidence that they do."
Expelled should prove to be a very eye-opeing documentary on the battle of truth claims between the two primary religious worldviews; Christianity and humanism
zenodaddy: "these two are well respected scientists who in fact hold scientific models based on the Genesis creation event wrapped around the big bang."
zenodaddy, thanks for your reply. I'm wondering who respects these two scientists who deny the facts of biological evolution. Certainly they are not respected by the tens of thousands of scientists who have made scientific discoveries that strongly support biological evolution. Rana and Ross insult the integrity and hard work of virtually the entire scientific community. Biologists would be more likely to be disgusted with Rana and Ross than respect them.
Your reasons.org talks about science, but it's not a science website. It's a religious organization that tries to make science conform with the Bible. Real scientists, including religious scientists, have to go where the evidence goes, not where some ancient holy book goes.
Not only are Rana and Ross and other evolution deniers an extremely small minority of scientists, they are also an extremely small minority of religious scientists. Virtually all religious scientists, especially the biologists, completely accept the basic facts of biological evolution, because the evidence for it is so massive, powerful, and overwhelming, a religious scientist would have to be nuts to deny it.
It was interesting to me that you did not mention even one biologist who denies the facts of biological evolution. I know there's a small handful of them, but they all work at Bible colleges or other religious organizations and none of these biologists have contributed anything important to biology. The only reason they deny evolution is their religious beliefs. They think ancient myths are more important than scientific evidence. It's for a good reason they can only be found at Bible colleges. They are too incompetent to work anywhere else.
A biologist said "Evolution is the grand unifying theory of biology. It is a solid core running through all modern research from molecular biology to genomics to ecology."
A biologist who denies evolution is denying the cornerstone of modern biology.
@ Howard:
'What are their names? Are they biologists? How many are there? If they are not biologists, what is their branch of science? Keep in mind that engineers are not scientists. What Bible college do they work for?'
One is Dr. Fazale Rana who holds a Ph.D in biochemistry, and another is Dr. Hugh Ross who holds a Ph.D in Astronomy. When it comes to evolution, Biochemistry and Astronomy go hand in hand... however, these two are well respected scientists who in fact hold scientific models based on the Genesis creation event wrapped around the big bang.
For all of you pro-evolutionists, I challenge you to go to reasons.org and read what they have to say... you may be surprised...
Whoever gave me a "thumb's down" can go ahead and answer my question then.
Hawk, they are not abandoning it. Substanially less than one percent of scientists believe ID or "creation science."
Tell me Hawk, if ID is such a compelling theory, tell me what it is and tell me one prediction that it makes that can be falsified.
"It's plain that evolutionists have their own 24/7 propaganda and indoctrination tool working hand in hand with control of public school curriculum and thus the impressionable minds of the next generation."
The biologists have all the evidence. The creationists have no evidence at all for their magical creation but they do have their indoctrination of small children before they take their first science class.
You can teach your religious magic in Sunday school. The science classes belong to the science teachers. A competent science teacher would never agree to teach magical creation.
I noticed scientists are not demanding equal time in Sunday school. The creationists who don't know a thing about science have no right to tell science teachers what they should teach.
I just want to address the accusation that PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins sneaked into the viewing of "Expelled".
According to both Myers and Dawkins, Myers requested tickets for himself and guests online in accordance to the process for ticket requests. He did not use a pseudonym or give false information so the producers knew an advocate for the opposing viewpoint would be attending. When he came to the showing he presented his ID, as requested and was then thrown out despite having a ticket. His guests, which included Dawkins were allowed into the screening. Dawkins was not recognized until the Q&A afterwards.
I just wanted to point out the other side's version of what happened since they were portrayed as trying to attend under false pretenses.
Absolutely hilarious!
One wonders why evolutionists can't handle a little criticism of their beliefs? or anyone publicly speaking about an alternative to their fantasy?
It's disheartening that I can't watch a most programs on the Discovery channel without being bombarded by sloppy "evolution-this" and "evolution-that" conjecture.
One has to take half of everything portrayed, with a grain of salt to correct for the all-encompassing theory that has grown from evolutionist's "magic puddle of goo".
It's plain that evolutionists have their own 24/7 propaganda and indoctrination tool working hand in hand with control of public school curriculum and thus the impressionable minds of the next generation. But it would seem that they object to not being able to create an absolute monopoly on the media that may reach people's minds.
Thank God!
Why, if macroevolution is so compelling based on "facts" are scientists abandoning it for Intelligent Design or Creation Science?
What are their names? Are they biologists? How many are there? If they are not biologists, what is their branch of science? Keep in mind that engineers are not scientists. What Bible college do they work for?
A biologist who throws out the science of biological evolution and replaces it with intelligent design supernatural magic would be the most incompetent fake biologist in the world.
Howard and Ifeelfine:
You both ignored the most obvious. Why, if macroevolution is so compelling based on "facts" are scientists abandoning it for Intelligent Design or Creation Science?
Hawk49: Even the father of ID, Phillip Johnson, admits there is no real theory of ID that holds a candle to evolution. Lots of deeply religious folks understand evolution and knows that it does nothing to dispel Christianity or religion.
Ken Miller just gave an excellent lecture at UT Austin on Friday. Here is the link if you want to view the webcast. It is very long (almost two hours) but is just phenomenal. http://www.esi.utexas.edu/outreach/ols/lectures/Miller/ You will have to install a Windows Media Player plug-in but it is fairly innocuous. If you're serious about Christianity you owe it to yourself to take a look.
HAWK49: "IDers and Creationists are forced out by evolutionists, not on a scienctific basis, but a trumped up basis of claiming it is religion. What religion, may I ask?"
Many proponents of intelligent design (especially the Discovery Institute) don't like to talk about who the designer is, because if they admit the designer is God, their intelligent design sounds more religious than scientific. I think you are more honest than the Discovery Institute, so I think you would admit the designer is God. Don't you think it's fair to call an idea that invokes God a religious idea?
HAWK49: "This is a belief system and any legitimate challenge to it is met with derision from evolutionists."
I'm wondering why you would call biological evolution a belief system. I doubt you would call gravity a belief system. Did you not understand my explanation of some of the molecular evidence for evolution? If you didn't understand what I said it was my fault. I should have explained it better but I did the best I could. May I please suggest you read what the Christian biologist Ken Miller said at the Dover trial: http://tinyurl.com/2llumn Nobody can explain evolution better than Ken Miller, and that's why he's my favorite religious biologist.
Your "any legitimate challenge to it is met with derision from evolutionists" is not correct because you used the word "legitimate". There is nothing legitimate about intelligent design creationism. It has no evidence at all. This is an idea that invokes God, which makes it a religious idea. Religious ideas can never be called scientific. Religious scientists understand why God must be left out of science, because invoking God makes scientific progress come to a complete stop. It's not logical for a scientist, whether or not he is religious, to use supernatural ideas to explain the natural world.
HAWK49: "Intelligent Design is a peer reviewed and an accepted theory and should be welcomed into the scientific community for further testing and validation."
Further testing? There has been no testing at all so far. All the ID proponents have is their complaints about evolution. They have not tested their intelligent design because it can't be tested. Since invoking intelligent design is the same as invoking God, perhaps you would like to explain how a scientist would test and validate God.
Howard;
It is very fair and honest to label Darwinian evolution as a religion since it is unproven (ie:macroevolution) and built upon presuppositions and conjecture, even after 140 years. This is a belief system and any legitimate challenge to it is met with derision from evolutionists. Intelligent Design is a peer reviewed and an accepted theory and should be welcomed into the scientific community for further testing and validation. But just as Galileo was forced into house arrest by his scientific peers and the church, IDers and Creationists are forced out by evolutionists, not on a scienctific basis, but a trumped up basis of claiming it is religion. What religion, may I ask?
Antony Flew summed it up best when he abandoned Darwinian evolution for Intelligent Design and stated that due to his intellectual honesty he has to go to where the evidence leads. Interesting that most who have accepted Intelligent Design were fully schooled in evolution but made the exit when they also followed the evidence. There have been no IDers, to my knowledge, that have reverted back to belief in macroevolution.
Right 1man, I couldn't believe in spiritual, supernatural, miracles, or God, even if I wanted to. I can accept only the natural world, and I assume a natural cause for everything. If that makes me defective, I don't care. I like the idea that everything has developed naturally, including the species I belong to, and the universe I live in. Trying to figure out how something happened without any supernatural intervention is a very interesting challenge. I find religious solutions to be very boring.
I think what you mean is spiritual, you don't believe in spiritual
Howard....Adam, that was a good summary of the OT and NT miracles. I couldn't believe any of it myself, but if you can believe all that, you have my congratulations. I just don't have what it takes to believe in the supernatural. . . . . wah ha ha ha
all that is in this world in it's intricacy and you don't believe in "super natural"???
i dont need to be a scientist to see that there are apples and bananas and oranges, etc. growing on trees for my enjoyment, or potatos and tomatos and watermelon and beans and corn growing out the ground for my nutrition, i guess the big bang knew i'd get hungry huh? the Lord of all Glory chose the foolish things of this world to shame the wise. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved, those whose lives are being transformed, it is the power of God Almighty, the Ancient of Days.
Mr. Eat asked "I must ask you where is this common ancestor"
Good question. There's lots of common ancestors going back more than 3 billion years, but they are all extinct. It's a fact of nature that life changes over vast periods of time. Scientists can see the history of life when they study fossils. The fossil record is impressive and still growing, despite the fact that most creatures completely decompose after they die. Fortunately the fossils are not even necessary because new powerful molecular evidence has helped scientists learn about the history of life.
A quote from Ken Miller (a religious biologist): "And to me, as a scientist, the most remarkable thing about evolutionary theory is that as the science of biochemistry has developed, as the science of cell biology, genetics, molecular biology, and other elements of science have developed, all of these have fit beautifully into the general framework described by Darwin almost 150 years ago."
Mr. Eat said "he created us in his image therefore we want to create and find out more about him and his creation."
That's exactly what scientists are doing. Finding out things. For religious scientists like Francis Collins, they are trying to find out how God creates.
Of course I'm not qualified to say anything about God, since I don't agree He exists, but I have read what religious scientists like Ken Miller and Francis Collins have said. With every new scientific discovery they say they understand God better. These scientists have no choice about accepting evolution. For them denying evolution would be like Galileo denying the Earth's orbit around the Sun. The only difference is Galileo made his discoveries using a telescope, and molecular biologists made their discoveries using a microscope.
Adam, that was a good summary of the OT and NT miracles. I couldn't believe any of it myself, but if you can believe all that, you have my congratulations. I just don't have what it takes to believe in the supernatural.
God is far above men we cannot contain him. God set man over nature and science. therefore God is above all.
God is real that is why the earth is real. with out God there is nothing.
very, very true Adam. but evolutionists will not listen to that. science is some thing real, God created it and shows us through it he is a orderly absolute God who believes in rules. he created us in his image therefore we want to create and find out more about him and his creation.
Do not tie your soul to science.
I make no quams that the creation story is beyond scientific comprehension. I have no need to gain the stamp of approval from the scientific community before I believe it to be the truth of why we exist.
Everything in an atheist's world must bow down to the god of science, but not in my world. My soul is not tied to what can be measured.
Let's be clear about the God that we're talking about. He created the earth in 6 days. Unexplainable. He gathered every animal on the earth in pairs and put them on a boat. Unexplainable. He flooded the entire earth with a command. Unexplainable. He actually talks to mankind. Unexplainable. He destroys the walls of cities with a command. Unexplainable. He commanded a fish to swallow a man, and preserved his life for three days in its belly. Unexplainable. He tells men what is going to happen in the future. Unexplainable.
Now let's get to the REALLY good stuff. GOD TAKES ON FLESH AND LIVES ON THE PLANET. Unexplainable. He heals sick people without medicine. Unexplainable. He raises the dead without CPR. Unexplainable. He walks on water. Unexplainable. He walks through walls. Unexplainable. Men pray and actual tongues of fire appear over their heads. Unexplainable. Men heal the sick not with medicine, but by saying the name of Jesus. Unexplainable. Philip is in Israel one second, the next he has been translated to Ethiopia. Unexplainable.
Would somebody explain to me what science has to do with GOD? You can't measure HIM. I will not tie my soul to science, because GOD is GOD over science. He can command a river to stand on end. He can stop the sun in the sky. He can command rain not to fall for years.
Man does not stand over GOD and judge HIM.
I thank you so much Howard for being well mannered and human. most other evolutionists i have talked too have been out right rude and "apeish". so I have had to fight back with similar replies. but if it is how long some thing has been tested, is what makes it enduring. It would be like beating a dead horse to believe something, that after so many years has still not been logical proven. besides if you want length of belief look at creationism it has been believed for thousands of years and it has been practiced in, and for science for almost 300 years. and I must ask you where is this common ancestor. so far creationism has more evidence for this.
Mr. Eat said "call me stupid, but so far science is more supportive of creation at this point."
Eat, I'm certain you are a genius, but even extremely smart people like yourself can't be experts at everything. You need to understand evolution has been successfully tested for more than 140 years.
Here's a quote from a biologist: "My point here is that there is an incredible amount of evidence for evolution, far more than any one person can digest, and that it is a vital field, still growing and still producing new results. All those papers don't get published unless they contain some new observation, a new experiment, a new test of the idea…and evolution has weathered them all."
From the same biologist: "The vast majority of all biologists, people who have extensive training in the subject and use biology day by day, see that evolution is well supported by the evidence and is a solid foundation for research."
Please see http://tinyurl.com/6qn3gm
Both Mr. Eat and HAWK49 imply the science of biological evolution is a religious belief. I wonder if they would say the same thing about gravity. It's not fair to call a scientific fact a religion just because it conflicts with one religious belief.
There is only one way to explain the appearance of identical endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) in exactly the same place in the genome of more than one species. The ERVs must have been inherited from a common ancestor species. The idea that God is in the business of inserting ERVs into different creatures, being careful to put the ERVs in exactly the same place in different species, because He enjoys deceiving 21st century scientists, is too ludicrous to consider. This is why Francis Collins accepts the evolutionary relationship of humans and chimps. He can’t deny what he saw with his microscope just like Galileo couldn’t deny what he saw with his telescope.
Howard,
Your conclusion about what qualifies a scientist doesn't hold water. Your religious dogma is what "Expelled" is all about; exposing the dogma of the religion of scientism and the prejudices involved. This is from a paper published by AIG regarding the protection necessary for creation research scientists within the secular community.
*These are pseudonyms. The writers, who hold PhDs in fields related to the topics of their abstracts, are scientists at prominent research facilities in the eastern part of North America. They prefer to keep their creationist credentials
hidden for the moment until they achieve more seniority. Howard, understand your religious beliefs:
...science is a doubled-edged sword. On the one hand there is scientific truth, a bona fide knowledge of a special kind; but that knowledge is accompanied in practice by a syndrome of philosophic assumptions which are generally mistaken for scientific truths...As a major example I would mention the Darwinian theory of evolution, which (contrary to official belief) is not in fact a scientific hypothesis corroborated by empirical facts, but a philosophic tenet masquerading in scientific garb. As one molecular biologist has put it, Darwinism is ultimately "no more and no less than the great cosmogenetic myth of the twentieth century."
Howard, you talk about science as if it's a religion, just like a muslins talk about non believers and believers before they become radical. I think we are now talking about a different definition of science altogether. I believe in science that can be proven and tested and tried and found to be true. if one thing in that hypothesis is proven wrong while in testing it is invalid to me. evolution needless to say did not make the cut. call me stupid, but so far science is more supportive of creation at this point.
Answers in Genesis claims the entire universe is 6,000 years old. That is a lie. You cannot find it written in the Bible that God created the universe in 6,000 years. It says in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.... God rested from all His works on the seventh day. The time God created these things is not known. Just because later on in the Bible it says a day in heaven is 1000 year to our time does not equate Genesis time and our time. Adam and Eve lived in the garded of Eden for some time.
I named my dogs, Darwin #1 and Darwin #2 does that mean I am over and out? Laugh.
What is it with these people having a problem with individuals who stand up and question problems within Darwin theory?
Why are they are so insecure about Darwinism?
What are they afraid about people questioning Darwinism?
If the theory is spot on then it shall withstand this and lots more. Laughing out loud
HAWK49: "What makes a real scientist Vs a non-real scientist? How are you able to determine that the AIG scientists don't have the skills and knowledge or should be considered 'real' scientists?"
Answers in Genesis claims the entire universe is 6,000 years old. Do I have to tell you how ludicrous that is? Sorry, but anyone who believes that nonsense can not be called a scientist. A belief in a young universe requires the rejection of countless scientific discoveries from almost every branch of science.
One of their other problems (several books could be written about their problems) is they are constantly invoking a supernatural God to explain the natural world. These are religious ideas. Religious ideas are not scientific. If they want to invoke God for everything, they have a right to do that, but they can't claim they are being scientific because God can't be tested. Science requires evidence that can be tested and retested by other scientists. It's not possible to test for miracles. Science and religion are separate subjects. It makes no sense to mix scientific ideas and religious ideas together. That's just not science.
"Where does the new information come from?"
HAWK49, you should google "gene duplication".
If you have any other complaints about evolution, you should use google to research your problem. It's better to study evolution than complain about it. A little education can be very rewarding.
I think you didn't completely understand why biologists compare ERVs in different species to determine evolutionary relationships. If you're interested in this powerful molecular evidence for evolution, you can search for one of the many YouTube videos that explain it.
star2: "there is no evidence for it"
You insult biologists when you say that.
tamna: "The creation view is held by millions of people in the U.S."
That's correct. It's unfortunate but it's a fact. About half the American population completely rejects the facts of evolution, preferring to invoke God to explain the diversity of life. Most of the other half accepts evolution but they invoke God to invent and/or guide evolution.
In a 2007 poll only 14% of the American population completely accepts evolution without invoking God for it.
Those are the non-scientists. What about the scientists? Their opinion should matter, because after all, we are talking about what should be taught in a science classroom. Mathematicians should decide what's in a math class, and scientists should decide what's in a science class.
What percent of biologists accept the basic facts of evolution? Here's a quote from http://tinyurl.com/3gs8er
"Overall, the nation has a big problem," said Alters. "Approximately half of the U.S. population thinks evolution does (or did) not occur. While 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution, 40 to 50 percent of college students do not accept evolution and believe it to be 'just' a theory," he reported.
Since virtually all scientists accept evolution and consider it to be one of the big ideas of science, of course evolution and only evolution should be taught in biology classes. It's not logical to let uneducated non-scientists make these decisions.
Adam: "Overwhelming evidence= a law. Not enough evidence= a theory."
Somebody named LetUsRatiocinate on another blog explained the meaning of theory. I just stole it for you to read:
The hierarchy of scientific understanding goes like this, from least encompassing to greatest:
a: facts/observations/evidence
b: hypotheses
c: laws
d: Scientific Theories
a: at the bottom we have observations. Sometimes observations are called facts. These facts/observations are the evidential base for further understanding.
b: Next we make hypotheses about the observations/facts/evidence. Hypotheses are educated guesses about what we think will happen under a given set of circumstances. (E.g., if I jump out of a 10th story window into the air, I will fall.) Hypotheses can and must be tested. When the experiments and tests indicate facts do NOT support the hypothesis, the lack of support is noted and a new hypothesis is formed and tested.
c: When hypotheses have been tested and retested and re-retested many times so we can say with assurance what we expect to happen in a given circumstance, we then have a scientific law. (Law of Gravity, Law of Inertia, etc.)
This holds until new factual evidence comes in to disprove a specific law/hypothesis/evidence chain. In that case, the process begins again, ever chipping away at the unknown to arrive at the best and most accurate current understandings.
d. Only when the facts/evidence/hypotheses/laws are analyzed can we begin even to talk about a Theory. (A Scientific Theory is nowhere close to the common use of the word theory (lower case.) The common usage allows us to say we have a theory about why George and Jacqueline broke up or whether or not it will rain tomorrow. In this usage the word means guess or hunch.) A Scientific Theory attempts to explain all the steps below it (facts/evidence/hypothesis/law) in a way that accounts for all the prior information and makes predictions about what we might expect to find if the Scientific Theory (ST) holds. If current or new facts/evidence/hypotheses/laws do not support the ST, it must be discarded or changed.
Howard:
You wrote:
"They want to give science teachers the freedom to be incompetent."
Since when is discussing alternative points of view/theories and discussing the evidence for and against each point of view/theory considered "incompetent."
I am sorry but you have missed the point. The creation view is held by millions of people in the U.S. but, by your reasoning, I, as a teacher in a public school cannot even acknowledge there are other points of view and discuss the comparative evidence.
I used to make fun of "creation conspiracy theorists", (there's are creationist behind every thought about academic freedom, by gosh!) *sigh* now I just pity them.
Again, here we go, losing sight of the real issue. It is not about evolution or the Discovery Institute or politics or any persons version of reality. It is only about the ability of teachers to discuss with students alternative ideas, discussing evidence pro and con and basically teaching them how to think. It is about academic freedom. Pure and simple. By the way, I remember when the liberal establishment's rallying cry was "academic freedom" back in the 60's, 70's and 80's.
Everybody seemed to understand the phrase then, but not now. Funny how times, agenda's and attitudes have changed.
Well, that's enough of that. Have a great day.
Howard;
What makes a real scientist Vs a non-real scientist? How are you able to determine that the AIG scientists don't have the skills and knowledge or should be considered "real" scientists? You have not dispelled that Francis Collins has not concluded his findings with presupposition(s) as the field of study is still open to other interpretations.
Another role is—allegedly—in evolution. One article stated, “Genomic rearrangements caused by scattered homologous proviral sequences gave rise to countless genetic variations on which the evolutionary powers of selection and adaptation could work.” This means that retroviruses jumping in and out of the genome caused changes that were selected for, supposedly resulting in microbes becoming microbiologists. This type of evolution requires a gain of information that is not accomplished by retroviruses jumping around in the genome. In fact, mobility of transposable elements seems to be highly controlled by the host to provide stability to the host genome.
Where does the new information come from?
Here's some help on distinguishing the various forms of creation science.
(1) Scientific creationism (no reliance on biblical revelation, utilizing
only scientific data to support and expound the creation model).
(2) Biblical creationism (no reliance on scientific data, using only the
Bible to expound and defend the creation model).
(3) Scientific biblical creationism (full reliance on biblical revelation
but also using scientific data to support and develop the creation
model).
Overwhelming evidence= a law. Not enough evidence= a theory.
I understand scientists not wanting Bible stories in science classes. That makes total sense to me. On the other hand, if scientific theories about the earth being created in 6 days can be presented, then that should be presented.
The problem isn't that Evolution:The Science, is being taught in science class... the problem is that Evolution:The Religion, is. I've been to a higher learning institute, and the vast majority of academia snarls at the mention of God. These teachers are using evolution as their platform to preach a worldview that they have no business preaching in science class.
Why do people want their Christian religion in science classes? Because they feel that another religion is already there, and they want equal representation.
Howard
Re:The reason evolution is accepted by virtually all scientists is because of the extremely powerful evidence for it.
No, Howard. The only reason that evolution is accepted inspite of the fact there is no evidence for it is because they do not want to accept the fact that there is a God that they are accountable to.
Evolution means there is no God. If there is no God then man can do what ever he pleases and doesn't have to worry about giving an account of his actions and choices to God.
Creationism means there is a Creator. He is called God. The creation is accountable to the Creator. The Creator established it to be that way. The Creator decided the way things were going to be. He decided what laws would control what behavior and what consequences there would be for violating those laws. I know you don't like that because you don't want anyone telling you what to do. But whether you like it or not, that is the way it is. One day you will find that out.
tamna: "The issue here is about academic freedom."
In a few states right now there are some politicians who are trying to pass academic freedom laws, which would give science teachers the freedom to teach religious ideas instead of science. They want to give science teachers the freedom to be incompetent.
"Academic freedom" is the Discovery Institute's new name for creationism. The name changes for creationism have a long history. First it was called creationism. Then creationism was renamed to creation science. Then creation science was renamed to intelligent design. Then intelligent design was renamed to "teach the controversy". Now "teach the controversy" has been renamed to "academic freedom".
All of these name changes were made because the Discovery Institute has been trying to insert religious ideas into science classes. Whatever the Discovery Institute wants to call creationism (creation science, intelligent design, teach the controversy, academic freedom), it's still creationism, and it's still a religious belief. Since religious beliefs, no matter what they are called, are not scientific, they do not belong in science classes.
By the way the idea there is some controversy about the basic facts of evolution in the scientific community is dishonest. Evolution is the foundation of biology and biologists who deny the facts of evolution are extremely rare, and they have contributed nothing important to biology. The reason evolution is accepted by virtually all scientists is because of the extremely powerful evidence for it. I tried to explain some of this powerful evidence in my previous comments, and it's interesting this evidence was mostly ignored.
I haven't read every comment so far, but it seems to me the actual point here is being missed. It isn't about creation, or viruses, or Darwin, or whether a rock, given enough time, can evolve into a Nolel Prize Winning scientist. The issue here is about academic freedom,. The freedom to dissent. The freedom to consider all points of view without fear of losing one's position, ridicule, etc., etc. It's not about the theory of evolution, it's about the freedom to question any and all theories, period.
We can talk about ID/evolution/creation till we are blue in the face, but if we stifle academic and scientific discussions then we haven't learned much from the Dark Ages, have we. It appears the "academia" of today makes the Church of the Dark Ages look like boy scouts when it comes to surpressing open discussion of alternative explanations for observed phenomenom.
Just my two cents.
"Poor Adam. He isn't willing to admit that there are millions of Christians who believe that evolution did, in fact, occur."
Ahem...let me adjust that statement for you: "Poor Adam. He isn't willing to admit that there are millions of Christians who believe that evolution COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN USED BY GOD BUT IS JUST ONE OF MANY THINGS HE COULD'VE DONE."
Sorry for the caps...but this site doesn't have bold. As a person so reliant on science you should know that there's not always one explanation. I have no problem with the basic concept of evolution, however, there's so much evidence on both sides of the fence that I have no reason to fully hold it as truth. I will keep it as something God might've used just as I will The Big Bang. After all, they are both still theories now aren't they.
Oh and touche for john for bringing up Isaac Newton. I'm sure his laws won't be rejected by scientists any time soon despite his frim faith in God!!
HAWK49, Thanks for your comments about identical ERVs that appear in the exact same place in the DNA of more than one species.
You quoted Answers In Genesis, a website that claims the entire universe is 6,000 years old, but at least you didn't invoke Satan like somebody else did.
Your quote from A in G: “A specific retroviral integration site shared by two species is indicative of a common ancestor because the likelihood of independent integrations at exactly the same locus (insertional homoplasy) is negligible.” Their presupposition of common ancestry is supporting their interpretation of the evidence for common ancestry. Could it also be indicative of a common designer? It is possible that certain sites are predisposed to the insertion of retroviruses. Since chimp and human genomes are similar, identical sites in the genomes may have seen incorporation of these retroviruses in the past.
A in G is correct about one thing - certain areas are predisposed to the insertion of retroviruses. But what A in G doesn't mention is there's still millions of possible locations an ERV could be inserted into DNA. You are more likely to win a lottery than there is for an identical ERV to appear in exactly the same place in the genome of two or more species, unless the ERVs were inherited from the same ancestor species.
A in G also invokes a common designer (God), implying that God is in the business of inserting ERVs into the DNA of different creatures, being careful to insert identical ERVs into identical locations, perhaps because He enjoys deceiving 21st century scientists.
I would like to point out that A in G does not do laboratory research. They do not have the skills and knowledge of real scientists, including the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, Francis Collins, an extremely religious scientist who has seen this molecular evidence with his own eyes and agrees identical ERVs in identical locations in the DNA of two or more species can only be explained by the inheritance of these ERVs from a common ancestor species.
John Kandor,
As you might figure out, today is a heavy work day for me, so let me just quickly respond with a couple of things.
First, SOME of what is in the Bible is symbolic, metaphorical, or allegorical – not much. MUCH of what it is in the Bible are straight forward, historical facts and accounts (with a lot backed up by archaeology). Most of the metaphorical, symbolic and allegorical passages in the Bible are found in the Psalms, Proverbs and parables of Jesus and are pretty easy to spot.
The account of creation was written in a straight-forward, historical account way. There is some debate among theologists that there is room for stretching time between Gen1:1 and 1:2. After that, it is believed because of the reference to morning and evening on each day that it is a literal 24 hour day. There are other supports for this that I don’t have time for right now.
I guess my final thing would be that since the majority of the Bible is historical facts and accounts, by use of your reasoning, why wouldn’t you be willing to accept that?
Sorry, I have to get to church. (at least they can’t start without me!)
Take care,
Pablo
Hi Chris,
I think you and I are in agreement on many of these issues. I too, think that a six-day creation model is not theologically necessary. I also think that the fighting between evolution and ID is theologically pointless, because Christian faith is consonant with either of these models. What matters is that we were part of God’s plan from the beginning. Whether He chose evolution, or ID, or some other mechanism to bring us here, is not what matters theologically. (Although, I must admit that some descriptions of ID from the likes of Prof. Behe, where the “designer” is continually tweaking and adjusting and refining his creation, do trouble me theologically. If we are to understand that the designer is God, we should acknowledge that God in His power does not need to tweak or nudge or adjust his creation—a single act of creative will is all God needs. I really do not think that Christianity’s understanding of God is consistent with the very limited “designer” of Prof. Behe.)
I also see your point regarding the continuity of “story” and “history”. That is an interesting point, and it is one I had not considered before. I have always considered that, given the differences between Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of Genesis, that these were meant to be allegorical, and not a precise historical account of exactly when different living things appeared.
I also think that, because “Truth cannot contradict Truth”, we must work to integrate our understanding of Truth, as revealed in the Word, with our understanding of Truth as revealed in our study of God’s created Universe. For instance, before Copernicus and Galileo, we thought that the description of the Earth as fixed and motionless was literally true. Now, through our study of the Universe, we understand that this was metaphor. So we can see that these different approaches can, together, give us a better understanding of God’s Truth.
This isn’t an easy process, and we are by no means done with it. I think it’s safe to say that our understanding will continue to grow for many, many years to come. That too, seems to be part of God’s plan for us.
Peace to you, Chris!
John
The problem with the interpretations for the ERV is that these interpretations are based on presuppostions (philosophy, not the science method)
“A specific retroviral integration site shared by two species is indicative of a common ancestor because the likelihood of independent integrations at exactly the same locus (insertional homoplasy) is negligible.” Their presupposition of common ancestry is supporting their interpretation of the evidence for common ancestry. Could it also be indicative of a common designer? It is possible that certain sites are predisposed to the insertion of retroviruses. Since chimp and human genomes are similar, identical sites in the genomes may have seen incorporation of these retroviruses in the past.
But the evolutionists will not admit to this.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1219herv.asp
JohnKandor,
I am not Pastor, but I will add my 2 cents, if that is ok.
Q: "Why can't a six-day creation be just as much of a metaphor as a motionless Earth? Since you are willing to accept the latter, why not the former?"
A:
1)The Psalms, Parables of Jesus, and other such sayings are clearly indicated by the context, as songs, parables, sayings. These things are clearly meant to be taken as representative and symbolic. The Creation goes directly from "Story" to "history", with no break. We can trace, more or less, directly from Abraham to Adam. But if Adam is just a story, then this should be impossible. There is no context to believe this was a story either.
2) This absolutely does not mean that we must accept a 6-day Creation model! I am not saying it is wrong, I have my own ideas about it, but there was not even a sun on the first "days" and thus it would be literally impossible for literal "days". It could have been six 24 hour periods, but it does not have to be.
Thus, we do not have to go crazy and start randomly choosing parts of the Bible that we want to be "allegorical". Rather we can accept the entire Bible, and let the Bible decide what is allegorical and what is not.
I support debate with evolution, because I believe science not only should be challenged, but absolutely must be challenged. If evolution is true, then the holes in the theory should be able to be filled, if it is not, then there is another answer. The fighting between evolutionists and ID proponents is ridiculous. What is more, an actual Christian faith is not at stake here.
pastorpablito: "The Bible does not say that the earth is motionless. That is misinterpretation of scripture. . . . The Bible also says that the earth is God's footstool, that doesn't mean that we think or God meant that the earth has four feet and is shaped like an ottoman!"
Well, that's really the point, isn't it? Much of what is in the Bible is symbolic, metaphorical, or allegorical. Many, if not most, of Jesus' sermons were allegorical. Clearly, this is how God chooses to teach us.
Pastor, you are quite correct in saying that the Psalms which describe the Earth as being motionless are using a metaphor, and that we must interpret these passages correctly. Certainly this is true, in light of our current scientific understanding of the Universe, where the Earth orbits the Sun. "It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say." ("Truth cannot contradict truth", Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996)
Pastor, my question to you is this: Why can't a six-day creation be just as much of a metaphor as a motionless Earth? Since you are willing to accept the latter, why not the former?
Howard,
Hey, so I want to share with you a little bit about the knowledge of God. I don't think you know this about Him...
2 Chronicles 18 - King Zedekiah, a wicked and prideful king, is trying to get "permission" from God to start an unjust war. So God sends a lying spirit to fill the mouths of the king's so-called prophets to convince him to go to war, where he is killed.
And also look at 2 Thessalonians 2 - Speaking of unrighteous, prideful men... "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie"
God despises proud men that boast themselves against the knowledge of Him, and He actively works against them. It's important that you know what He is really like, and not what you think He should be like.
He has revealed Himself exactly as much as He has desired to to humanity. He has made it so that there is only one way to enter into the knowledge of God, and that is through the Humble Gate.
There is no entrance for the proud.
This is my prayer, "JESUS, make me humble like you are, so I can see you clearly in a world that is chasing after delusion."
Do Atheists Exist?
http://polemos.net/Do%20Atheists%20Exist.html
"...For centuries now men have been debating the existence of God. Just think about that; men who were created by God debating about whether or not that God exists, little men attempting to bring the almighty Creator before the bar of their finite judgment! If it were not such a crime it might be something to laugh at...."
Rom 1:20-23 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. (NIV)
This is still just as true today. Man refuses to believe what God has created and although he thinks "he is wise, they have become fools". Evolutionists have replaced the carved idols for the ones that are dug up, "they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." That's what you search for the fossils and bones of man, birds, animals and reptiles and you make them your idols when you deny God and believe in the bones and rocks.
Verse 20 says that man will have "no excuse". There is a judgment coming for this idolatry and the punishment will be spiritual death. All the ape bones, fossils, facts, theories, textbooks and Supreme Court decisions you have will not be able to save you from it.
Laugh at me, make fun of me whatever you want, but those my friends ARE the FACTS, whether you believe them or not. I feel sorry for you if you find out too late that this is true. But, right now, there is still time. Repent and turn to God and He will save you.
Pablo
Pierre JC,
The Bible does not say that the earth is motionless. That is misinterpretation of scripture. Until you have taken some theology and Biblical studies classes and know something about exegetical study, please refrain from telling us "what you THINK the Bible says".
I know the passages you are talking about and they are the feeble attempt of scientist, biologists, evolutionist and other ape-related people to try to prove inaccuracies in an accurate book.
The Bible also says that the earth is God's footstool, that doesn't mean that we think or God meant that the earth has four feet and is shaped like an ottoman!
Pablo
Howard
Re:schemeroo, if you got anything better than a God who would willingly deceive scientists, I sure would like to see it. Thanks.
God has not deceived anyone. He has made it quite plain how He created everything. The only one who has deceived you is the spirit that is behind evolution, i.e., Satan.
schemeroo: "(in fact, even if you believe endogenous retroviruses prove evolution, there has been a whole lot of even more modern research which casts lots of doubts - at least enough to hardly call it 'proven')"
Identical ERVs in the exact same place in the DNA of two species can only be explained by the fact the ERVs were inherited from a common ancestor species. There can be no doubt about the accuracy of this molecular evidence for evolutionary relationships. Ask the top scientists in the world if you don't believe me. These are the people who have seen this molecular evidence with their own eyes, including Francis Collins. Nobody could be more religious than Francis Collins and he completely agrees with the rest of the scientific community - because of this extremely powerful molecular evidence there can be no doubt at all about evolutionary relationships, including our close relationship to the chimpanzee apes. I'm wondering if you think Dr. Collins is a liar. Or perhaps you think Dr. Collins, a Christian and the director of the Human Genome Project, is incompetent.
The only complaint I have heard is the wild claim that God inserted identical ERVs in identical places in the genome of more than one species to intentionally deceive the 21st century scientists who made these discoveries.
schemeroo, if you got anything better than a God who would willingly deceive scientists, I sure would like to see it. Thanks.
I have spent quite a bit of time studying ERVs and other molecular evidence for evolution. I could never understand it at the extreme level of detail that Francis Collins understands it, but I know more than enough about it to be able to agree with Dr. Collins. This evidence shows beyond any doubt the evolutionary relationships of humans to other primates and many other evolutionary relationships. The creationists don't have any idea how much evidence there is for evolution, and the creationists don't have any idea how powerful and rapidly growing this evidence is.
WAY TO GO ADAM!!! two thumbs up!
Having been a screener of the movie, all I can say is posts like Howard made are pretty much the best evidence for the purpose of the movie. Howard is simply regurgitating something he probably read or heard, which is one very small part of a much bigger picture, and hardly proves anything beyond a shadow of doubt (in fact, even if you believe endogenous retroviruses prove evolution, there has been a whole lot of even more modern research which casts lots of doubts - at least enough to hardly call it "proven") - yet he considers anyone conisdering challenging it - the hallmark of good science - not real scientists... There is plenty to debate about true speciation via selection, its not a closed book - whichever way you believe - yet dialogue is completely closed on ID by folks like Howard... he forms the best case himself for all to read in his posts...
As a "side note" too, by the way,..I have read the books G--d the Evidence by Patrick Glynn,and also Jesus, the Great Debate by Grant R. Jeffrey,among others,.....so to me personally, and I can`t speak for everyone, that is,.. in my mind not alot of "Gray areas" involved here, even though alot of this is a Wonderful education to myself,....Thanks All,.....
To: Ben Stein,...John 14:6,....Adam,....what a "train wreck" Right?? I think I`ll stick with what I believe,...and THANKS FOR HELPING...by the way,.....turning somethin` so simple into utter insanity?
Thanks again All,.......John 14:6,....I know I trust your thinking process,....
"Through interviews with experts and professors from both camps, he discovers an elitist scientific establishment that punishes the scientific proponents of intelligent design because they reject some of the claims of Darwin’s theory of evolution."
-Ehh, no Mr. Stein. The same type of biased journalism only interviews a few ppl, takes some notes, and 'discovers a problem.' An honest, respected and researched documentary would study a problem over time, interview as many people as possible, take many other factors into context, and not rely on mere polls and 'data' or whatever this film claim's to have used.
And when people say comments such as "I don't know why evolutionists are getting so offended, after all... they're the ones calling themselves monkeys." shows why people are willing to sabotage sloppy documentaries like this one.
Adam: "He made the animals, but then He made man special."
That's a good summary of creationism.
If creationism is correct then God also inserted several identical ERVs into exactly the same place in the genome of chimps and humans to deceive 21st century scientists into believing these two species inherited the same ERVs from a common ape-like ancestor. Creationists have to believe God deceives scientists for the fun of it. Religious scientists, for example the biologist Ken Miller, believe God is honest, and they believe He was intelligent enough to let evolution do His creating for Him.
Biologists who believe in God think creationists insult the intelligence of God when they claim He used his supernatural powers to create millions of different plants and animals instead of letting nature do the creating. Religious scientists like Francis Collins have to accept the molecular evidence for evolution because they have seen it with their own eyes and they understand it better than anyone.
Howard, Pierre,
We do not stand over God and judge Him. He stands over us and judges us. God has said Himself that He resists the proud but shows Himself to the humble. That is what He is like. You will not, and you can not, perceive Him as long as you are puffed up in your own opinions. He won't allow you to see Him.
I would really like you to be able to know that He is real. I want you to know Him, because He is really, really kind. And His love is unbelievable.
I know Him, and He is exactly who He says He is. And we are exactly who He says we are. He made the animals, but then He made man special. He made us very special. We have a unique capacity. We were made for beauty, love, fascination, and adventure. These things do not exist anywhere else in creation except man. We were made for God. Everything else... the animals, nature, the universe, is God's love letter to us.
That is the truth about our existence. We are not one among many species. If I may be so bold, the entire universe was created for me. (and you, if you can believe it).
Adam wrote, "I reject the mountains of evidence for biological evolution because it's conclusion is that the universe is an accident."
Poor Adam. He isn't willing to admit that there are millions of Christians who believe that evolution did, in fact, occur.
Nor is he willing that the mountains of evidence for biological evolution do not force one to reach the conclusion is that the universe is an accident, but rather that the biblical account of creation is wholly inaccurate.
Adam, the Bible also says that the Earth is motionless.
Science says the Earth spins.
Which do you really believe? If you believe that the Earth does not spin, you need to get out more often.
Adam, I asked "Do you think it's offensive to be related to other species? Is that why you reject the mountains of evidence for biological evolution?" and your reply was "Howard, it's totally offensive. I reject the mountains of evidence for biological evolution because its conclusion is that the universe is an accident."
I think you're mixing up biology with cosmology. These are two different branches of science. Biology says nothing about the universe. It's only an explanation of life on one planet in the universe.
If you think the idea that humans are an ape species that developed from other animals is offensive, that's unfortunate because it's a fact. Biologists know it's a fact because, for example, they have found several matching endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) in the exact same place in the genome of all the ape species, including the human species. These ERVs were inherited from a common ancestor species which is now extinct. The insertion of ERVs into the exact same place in the DNA of two different species by God would be highly improbable, unless you think God would intentionally deceive scientists, and I doubt you could believe that.
The biologists don't have a problem with their relationship with all other life. For them it's extremely interesting and they have made it their career to learn more about it.
Howard, it's totally offensive. I reject the mountains of evidence for biological evolution because it's conclusion is that the universe is an accident. I know you believe that, but it is impossible for me to. I'm not saying anything about you and your beliefs, but I think too much to believe in evolution.
john 14-6 wrote, "Wow, they sure seem very worried over Ben Stein's little movie, don't they? Ben's film must be hitting pretty close to the mark to get 'em all riled up like this."
So, by this reasoning, Jews who objected to Goebbels' anti-Jewish Nazi propaganda were offended not by the falsity of the propaganda, but rather by its accuracy.
Among Christians, this passes for logic. How sad.
"That seemed close to happening when two vocal atheist scientists, Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary "PZ" Myers, attempted to sneak in a screening two weeks ago in March."
This is a blatant lie. PZ Myers signed up on th web with his real and did not try and hide his identity. He also filled out the part of the sign-up form that he would like to bring guests and he chose the maximum of 3. Richar Dawkins was in town for a different conference, and Myers asked him to go along because Dawkins, like Myers, had been interviewed for the movie.
Mark Mathis, assistant producer for Expelled, knew hat Myers had signed up and has admitted to kicking out Myers on a whim just so Myers "Would know what it felt like". Imagine that, the producer of a movie doing exactly what his movie was complaining about. Can you say "hypocrisy".
Using this lie in a article is a contravention of journalistic ethics. Or is the Christian Post made p of the "Liars for Jesus" type that make me ashamed to dmit to my friends that I go to church every Sunday?
Adam: "I don't know why evolutionists are getting so offended, after all... they're the ones calling themselves monkeys."
Do you think it's offensive to be related to other species? Is that why you reject the mountains of evidence for biological evolution?
For the record, humans are not a monkey species. We share a common ancestor with monkeys but we are more closely related to the other ape species. This is a scientific fact, and if you spent some time studying biology, you would understand why it's a fact.
I can't wait to see this film! It's about time for some new voices and fresh ideas about why we exist than the evolution regime.
From the trailer, the film looks honestly done and fair. I hope that is really the truth.
I don't know why evolutionists are getting so offended, after all... they're the ones calling themselves monkeys.
heh chuckle chuckle. God Bless (especially evolutionists... for real)
john14-6: "Michael Behe and others mentioned in the article, or those in the documentary, are hardly 'fake scientists'."
Behe is not doing science and he's not a real scientist when he invokes intelligent design. Behe is a professor at Lehigh University, and his colleagues published the following statement about Behe's intelligent design creationism:
Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University
Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
The following paragraph is from a book that was recently published by the National Academy of Sciences.
"Creationists sometimes claim that scientists have a vested interest in the concept of biological evolution and are unwilling to consider other possibilities. But this claim, too, misrepresents science. Scientists continually test their ideas against observations and submit their work to their colleagues for critical peer review of ideas, evidence, and conclusions before a scientific paper is published in any respected scientific journal. Unexplained observations are eagerly pursued because they can be signs of important new science or problems with an existing hypothesis or theory. History is replete with scientists challenging accepted theory by offering new evidence and more comprehensive explanations to account for natural phenomena. Also, science has a competitive element as well as a cooperative one. If one scientist clings to particular ideas despite evidence to the contrary, another scientist will attempt to replicate relevant experiments and will not hesitate to publish conflicting evidence. If there were serious problems in evolutionary science, many scientists would be eager to win fame by being the first to provide a better testable alternative. That there are no viable alternatives to evolution in the scientific literature is not because of vested interests or censorship but because evolution has been and continues to be solidly supported by evidence."
da6383ma, biological evolution was not taught at all in public schools until Sputnik was launched in 1957. Then America noticed how uneducated their population was, so scientists were asked to rewrite science curriculums. Since scientists know how important evolution is, it started appearing in biology classes. The creationists have been complaining about it ever since then. Lately there has been a stronger effort to teach more about evolution, and the complaining about it has also increased.
john14-6, nobody is afraid of Stein's anti-science movie. People who love science just don't like movies that are dishonest about science. They also don't like movies that attack science education. Imagine a movie that spread lies about Christianity. You wouldn't be afraid of it, but you wouldn't like it. That's what scientists and science teachers don't like about Stein's movie. It's dishonest. The producers of this movie know how dishonest it is, and that's why they're so afraid of criticism of it. Their fear is obvious when they don't let scientists who appear in the movie see the movie.
Howard--
Michael Behe and others mentioned in the article, or those in the documentary, are hardly "fake scientists". And you have no credibility in making that claim. They have the degrees and peer reviewed work to back up the claims that they are "scientists". Science used to be about exploration - open and honest exploration of possibilites, open minds, seeking knowledge. Science, historically, was never just about "testable evidence" - you're talking about the scientific method, and as a methodology that's fine. But the true heart of science was always more than simply "testable evidence", models, etc. It was developed and evolved under religious and devout men, for instance, Isaac Newton, who was more a theologian than a scientist - it was all about seeking God for Newton, his mathematics were secondary (and he would have thought so and said so, too). Science used to be about freedom of thought, but this has changed and today science is nothing more than a narrow, dogmatic "church" exactly as suppressive of "thought" the very same way as they accuse the historic "Church" of being suppressive. Science has become its own religion, with its own orthodoxy, and if you step outside the boundaries they'll burn you at the stake, so to speak - or at least your career, anway.
That is what Ben Stein is saying in his film, and I can't wait to see the whole thing when it's released.
Atheists cannot handle anything that might point to an intelligence or power greater than themselves. In this sense, they are classic narcissists. Atheism is all about "them" in the end. To admit to a higher power or intelligence is to admit they under an authority greater than their own, and their egos cannot allow for that, or anything that denies a world that operates on a principal higher or greater their own whims.
Wow, they sure seem very worried over Ben Stein's little movie, don't they? Ben's film must be hitting pretty close to the mark to get 'em all riled up like this, to paraphrase Han Solo. Making every effort to crash premieres, sneaking onto private teleconferences, etc. Wonder what they could be so frightened of if they're so sure their little theory is correct?
It's all quite telling how fearful they are of Ben Stein's film, and it shows their belief in Darwinism isn't nearly as rock solid as they would have everyone believe. They doth protest too much...
Question: I`m a generation or two behind, I think,...But, has this "Darwinism" debate been a "hot subject" since the beginning or did it seem to pick up alot of steam after the "Woodstock era" and hippy movement of the 1960s`?
I`m being serious and tryin` to learn something here.........
Wiggy
Abiogenesists have no explanation for how life began and they have no evidence to support the idea that it began as a single cell organism.
Evolution is full of falsehoods, half-truths, and empty talk. And this is what is taught as science.
Your ideas are as foolish as those who use to think that the earth was flat.
Jar1961,
"some primordial lake of ooze had the ability to concurrently create man and woman at precisely the same time in earth history"
Not even close. I know it's a big statement but this has to be the most shockingly stupid misunderstanding of evolution I've ever seen...by a mile. You're a fool. Read a book or something would you? You have to understand something before you can criticize it.
Pierre JC,
What? (Did you read the article, or just the title)
Howard
There is no evidence to support evolution. So why is it taught in the classroom?
I have no intention of entering this debate. I spent almost 2 years from 2003 through 2005 debating atheists... and what they can't defined with facts or at least sound scientific theories they opine, whine and lie. Here are 2 questions Dakins and Myers will never be able to answer through science...
1. Where did the matter come from?
2. Assuming that some primordial lake of ooze had the ability to concurrently create man and woman at precisely the same time in earth history// who exactly nurtured the babies, took care of them, protected them from harm, the element and fed them?
"While Myers was promptly recognized and denied entry to the event, Dawkins was allowed entry because of what producers called his 'honorable' reputation."
Dawkins was able to see the anti-science movie because the thugs who told PZ to leave didn't recognize Dawkins.
The claim that Dawkins was intentionally not turned away is obviously dishonest, because the producer of the movie was surprised to see Dawkins when he stood to ask a question after the movie.
It's very strange PZ Myers was not allowed in. He was in the movie. I never before heard of a person not being allowed to see a movie he was in.
People can question the facts of evolution all they want, but if they want their ideas taught in science classrooms they need to provide testable evidence and they need to let other scientists review their evidence. If somebody claims the sun orbits the earth, he can't expect his idea to be taught in a science class, because this idea has no evidence. It's the same for a creationist's complaint about evolution. The creationist needs evidence for other scientists to repeatedly and successfully test. Only then can the creationist's ideas be taught in a science class. Science teachers don't want to teach false ideas and nothing could be more false than a creationist's complaint about evolution.
It's unfortunate creationists continue to call evolution "Darwinism". There have been 150 years of scientific discoveries since Darwin, and biologists now know more about the history of life than Darwin could have ever imagined possible. Biological evolution is called "evolution".
The fake scientists who reject the science of evolution are no different from a person who claims the earth is flat. Both flat-earthers and evolution-deniers deserve to be laughed at for the same reason. They are wrong because massive evidence proves they are wrong.
I named my dogs, Darwin #1 and Darwin #2 does that mean I am over and out? Laugh.
What is it with these people having a problem with individuals who stand up and question problems within Darwin theory?
Why are they are so insecure about Darwinism?
What are they afraid about people questioning Darwinism?
If the theory is spot on then it shall withstand this and lots more. Laughing out loud
DARWINISM AND ATHEISM are both UNSCIENTIFIC & MYTHICAL
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
Unfortunately, the producers of "Expelled" opened themselves up to charges of hypocrisy when they expelled Myers from the screening, after he had followed the producer's internet registration procedure.