Expelled was Excellent!

By Greg Stier|Christian Post Guest Columnist

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

I had the privilege of seeing the movie "Expelled: No intelligence" allowed in a pre-screening a few weeks ago and I’m thrilled that I did. It was a funny, thought provoking, dangerous, serious, engaging (and did I mention “funny”?) documentary. I have been a fan of Ben Stein since his “Bueller, Bueller” days, but now he is a rock star to me. He was so tongue-in-cheek that he almost bit it off.

Regardless of where you stand in the Creation vs. Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate you will find this documentary thought provoking and fun. Mr. Stein interviews experts from both sides of the debate and has a great time doing it.

He is not actually trying to make an argument for Intelligent Design as much as he is that we should be free to have the debate in the public square. "Expelled" clearly shows that once esteemed scientists and/or educators who embrace an I.D. point of view have been marginalized, mocked and often expelled by the tightly wound, gated community of evolutionary elitists who rule the roost of all things smart.

This documentary exposes the hypocrisy of the high brow intellegensia and shows that most are only open to free speech and debate if it happens on their side of “the wall” (a term that is coined to describe the closed thinking of many evolutionists to consider any other origin options than evolution.) "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" pulls their fancy pants down and spanks em good.

If I were a youth leader I’d take a core of my teenagers to go see it and then I’d make a plan with them to unleash a youth group wide discussion once the DVD came out. The doc, while great, feels like about 15 minutes too long for the average teenager to me. And the last thing I would want to do is have a bunch of teenagers fidgeting in the theater. They could miss out on some great content and that would be bad. This film is too important to miss any segment. I think the DVD, broken up in segments over the course of 4 weeks in the youth group setting, would give the entire youth group a chance to process and talk through the excellent content in this ground breaking documentary.

So grab ten or so of your teens, get some tickets this weekend and let the conversations begin! And, once the DVD comes out, make it a youth group wide, month long discussion. On second thought, open it up to the teen community once the DVD releases and use it as an outreach. If this is not an evangelism opportunity I don’t know what one is. For once a movie that doesn’t make creationist Christians look like back woods dummies who cling on to their guns and their religion in the face of all the evidence.

Where do I stand in the Creation vs. Evolution debate? Suffice it to say that I take Genesis chapter 1 at face value. Call me a brute. Call me a literalist. Call me a Neanderthal (actually dont’ call me that one). But don’t ever accuse me of not taking the Bible seriously. Although I have friends that vigorously debate with me on this, I just can’t get away from how plainly the first chapter of Genesis describes how everything began…and I believe it. Because I’m a scientist? No. I wasn’t even that good at science. I believe it because the Bible says it.

What about all the “evidence” that evolution provides? Check out "Expelled" when it comes out in theatres (Friday, April 18th). You may be surprised at how little compelling evidence Darwinian evolution actually does provide. Lots of smoke, little fire.

__________________________________________________________

Greg Stier is the President and Founder of Dare 2 Share Ministries in Arvada, Colo., where he works with youth leaders and students, equipping them to be effective in sharing the gospel. With experience as a senior teaching pastor and in youth ministry for almost 20 years, Greg has a reputation of knowing and relating to today’s teens. He is widely viewed as an authority and expert teen spirituality. He is known for motivating, mobilizing and equipping teens for positive change. For more information on Dare 2 Share Ministries, and the SURVIVE 07/08 conference tour, please visit www.dare2share.org.

Next Story : Evangelical Leaders Meet U.N. Chief

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

1 | 2

seedplanter »

Thu May 01, 2008 1:49 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

The reason why I think it is necessary to use terms that are clear, such as Neo-Darwinism and natural methodological evolution is simply because the term evolution has different conotations. Creationists for example believe in forms of evolution. YEC recognize micro-evolution. ID proponents recognize various degrees of macro-evolution. Behe for one example adheres to coomon decent while questioning random genetic mutations and natural selection alone as capable of giving rise to all complex organisms. There are other various degrees of agreement with evolution that doesn't necessarily refer to Neo-Darwinism. Not only is there confusion about this in the Christian community, but also apparently in the skeptics club as well.
cevink »

Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:14 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 1

Let me attempt to expound on the quite satisfactory answer to the origin of NeoDarwinism, as it highlights the fact that nobody in the scientific community "blindly" believes whatever Mr. Darwin espoused in The Origin of Species. Darwin didn't have the ample evidence provided by genetics, so his theory was based on hereditary pangenesis, which was SCIENTIFICALLY DISCREDITED due to the lack of evidence to support that aspect. Later, through genetic research, we discovered that the actual function relating to the transmission of hereditary characteristics from parent organisms to their children was carried out through Mendelian inheritance. The theory was updated and improved, which is something that could never happen with Intelligent Design, due to the utter lack of any observable evidence whatsoever.
agentorangex »

Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:25 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

The flim might make some change, but boy it's going to have a hard time defending itself in court with all those lawsuits comming up.

http://www.reuters.com/article/filmNews/idUSN2320158220080424
agentorangex »

Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:07 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Seedplanter,

“The term Neo-Darwinism was not drummed up by misleading creationists to degrade evolutionists, but by evolutionists themselves.”

Time for me to learn you up young padawan. The tern Neo-Darwinism in regards to Evolutionary biology was adopted b/c 1) The older and wrong ideas of Darwin don’t fully or accurately describe how evolution works from what we know now, IE he missed on some of the details, mostly b/c they were things he genuinely didn’t know of and so it’s hard to blame him directly.

2) The real term in biological circles is ‘the modern (evolutionary) synthesis’, in which new more accurate processes describe some of the details Darwin was ignorant of or got wrong. This is why Neo-Darwinism is aptly named, as at the core his ideas of NS and others are still valid, while smaller ones aren’t and thus to define evolution as Darwinism or even Neo-Darwinism is wrong and misleading b/c it gives the impression that all of his ideas were correct, when they certainly weren’t.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

From this view, it’s about as logical and correct as defining all of the knowledge we know regarding evolutionary biology as (neo) Darwinism, as it is to define gravity as Newtonianism. A lot has changed in over 150 years since Origins, and to leave the impression that all of Darwin’s ideas define how evolution is understood today is wrong, thus the term Neo is needed to infer an additional layer of knowledge.
seedplanter »

Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:02 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Cevink, quite simply, your air of superiority precedes you. To what do we poor helplessly ignorant Christians owe the honor of your visit? Are you afraid of the movie Expelled? Is that why you are here? The point? Yes that is the question now isn't it?

The term Neo-Darwinism was not drummed up by misleading creationists to degrade evolutionists, but by evolutionists themselves. It is a helpful tool to know and identify the common understanding of natural materialistic evolution, including common decent, natural selection and random genetic mutations. Many Christians hold to one or more of these, but not necessarily to the whole. When engaging dialogue, it is important to failiarize oneself with the terminology. Well, there you go.
agentorangex »

Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:17 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

cevink, is that all you're witing that they are censoring....wow. I can understand flagging hate speech, but this isn't at all and yet predictably it will likely be flagged. Countdown begins.....
cevink »

Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:05 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 2

I'm sorry, I would like you to point out where I claim to be superior....what I am claiming is that:

A. not only is evolution the superior hypothesis to explain the origin of life and species...

B. It is the *only* scientific hypothesis to do so.

now, I'm not sure just what you imply with "your claims of superiority betray you", but I can assure you that ad hominem attacks do not make an argument or even a valid point.

I don't think any of us "follow" Darwin....we just acknowledge that he is the first person to figure out that/how different species evolved to what they are today. If you have a better explanation that includes testable hypothesis, please do share it.

What you are making is a fallacious argument; appeal to authority (informal), as the founding fathers are *not* experts on evolution or any related field. Even Darwin believing in God makes no difference because theology is not Darwin's strength. I doubt any supporters of ID/Creationism can make anything *but* a fallacious argument, since none of them have any proof of anything they claim.
agentorangex »

Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:00 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Seedplanter

Are you suggesting Darwin was a creationist now? He was religious in his early years, but following the death of his young daughter and following his research his faith was eroded. Keep in mind Darwin wrote On Origins 20 years before he published it and so his religious faith from that time had wavered. Seed, I can’t believe you’re actually considering Darwin’s supposed death bed confession, even creationist sites lik AIG confirm it’s not true.
aritonang »

Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:30 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

To all dishonest secular atheist and agnostic, please stop the flagging and allow other people to express their opinion and believes. Also, secretly flagging your own post to gain leverage is called lying.
cevink »

Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:43 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

I'm sorry, I would like you to point out where I claim to be superior....what I am claiming is that:

A. not only is evolution the superior hypothesis to explain the origin of life and species...

B. It is the *only* scientific hypothesis to do so.

now, I'm not sure just what you imply with "your claims of superiority betray you", but I can assure you that ad hominem attacks do not make an argument or even a valid point.
seedplanter »

Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:20 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

cevnik, your ridiculous claims of superiority betrays you (w00t/Howard/George/oldguy/Dwen/yyyy/xxxx/first/danny2/danny/BobC/BobCu/Asdfg/zxcvb).
seedplanter »

Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:17 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

lossnerp, it is interesting that the first scientist to come up with the idea of survival of the fittest was actually a creationist. I also recently heard a discussion about Darwin's so called death bed conversion. I have long thought it to have been unreliable, but there certain data reveals that it is quite possibly true. His wife is said to have been a Christian and he himself had a Christian background prior to Origin of Species. I don't think it to be too far fetched to consider the possibility from those two points alone. Reportedly someone came in to see him and there were no witnesses to this confession, except for the visitor who apparently wrote about it later. His wife did not know about the meeting and thus it was considered legendary, but incidentally this meeting occurred when she claims to have been gone for a period of time. In any case I don’t think it really makes much difference in the evolution debate, especially considering numerous Christians adhere to complete Neo-Darwinism, such as Dr. Polkinghorn.

I have Original Intent by David Barton (of Wallbuilders) sitting on my shelf, but I have yet to read it.
cevink »

Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:16 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

lossnerp,

Uhm, I don't think any of us "follow" Darwin....we just acknowledge that he is the first person to figure out that/how different species evolved to what they are today. If you have a better explanation that includes testable hypothesis, please do share it.

What you are making is a fallacious argument; appeal to authority (informal), as the founding fathers are *not* experts on evolution or any related field. Even Darwin believing in God makes no difference because theology is not Darwin's strength. I doubt any supporters of ID/Creationism can make anything *but* a fallacious argument, since none of them have any proof of anything they claim.
lossnerp »

Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:12 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

For all you Darwin followers, check this out:

Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty, or rather impossibility, of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species. Charles Darwin

For our founding fathers opinions on evolution, which apparently has be a lie floating around since way before Darwin, check out Wallbuilders.com. There is also much information about their beliefs in religion in government as well. All sources are cited and many include photographs of the original texts.
seedplanter »

Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:03 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Evolution is the best model in a natural materialistic point of view, regardless of its efficiency as a whole.
agentorangex »

Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:38 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

seedplanter,

check out the film, by all means I have nothing against it, you're free to do as you please. I would like someone who has seen it to explain what nuggets of evidence it puts forth and hope to level with people on why such evidences aren't all they are cut up to be. IE, Ireducible Complexity.

Some things should be open more to debate and discussion in the class room b/c not enough is known to know where the answer is. With regards to evolution and if it occurs, to say it doesn't occur, that evolution attempts to explain life origins is wrong. it's like trying to suggest the earh might, or might not revolve around the sun. We should teach whatever the evidence best supports and currently, for the diversity of life, evolution is the best such model.
agentorangex »

Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:33 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

cevink,

I would just like someone, anyone really, who has seen the film to clue me on all the apparent wisdome and wonderous education it provides from Steins Interviews. I notcied the usual suspects from the ID isle, namely Billy boy Dembski, Meyers, Behe, Berlinkski and others so I know what their likely propositions they are putting forward and wonder if any new geniune evidence for ID has come out of the film which can't be found in books or the net.
seedplanter »

Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:26 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

If you want to know the truth about what I think Agent, just ask. Did I mention anything in my original post about government schools? What do you recall me having stated on prior posts?
seedplanter »

Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:24 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Agent, it sounds like it bothers you that I would go check out the film.

Actually, the film spends very little time arguing that the science class room should be a level playing field.

But now that you mention it, I ran across an interesting quote the other day by Dudley Field Malone, John Scope's attorney, "For God's sake, let the children have their minds kept open – close no doors to their knowledge; shut no door from them." An interesting twist of fate, huh?
cevink »

Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:05 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

oh my, sooooo many flaws in this poorly fact-checked piece of wishful thinking. If this is the best that the ID/creationist crowd can do, get used to your ideas being relegated to the confines of uber-fundie webloids. This movie can no more convince your average joe that life was created by a flying spaghetti monster than it can convince a majority of Americans that the sun revolves around the earth...an idea, which to my knowledge, you might still hold dear.

ah...marking posts as inappropriate; the last refuge of someone who cannot make a logical argument for ID/creationism/unprovable nonsense. The prosecution rests.
agentorangex »

Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:46 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

seedplanter,

ok, so now that you've viewed it perhaps you have some insight into the matter and on what grounds ID can and should be taught as science then?
cevink »

Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:54 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 1

Luckily, I save my posts in a text files to combat idiots like you:

oh my, sooooo many flaws in this poorly fact-checked piece of wishful thinking. If this is the best that the ID/creationist crowd can do, get used to your ideas being relegated to the confines of uber-fundie webloids. This movie can no more convince your average joe that life was created by a flying spaghetti monster than it can convince a majority of Americans that the sun revolves around the earth...an idea, which to my knowledge, you might still hold dear.
cevink

* Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:59 pm
* : 1
* : 0
* Flag

ah...marking posts as inappropriate; the last refuge of someone who cannot make a logical argument for ID/creationism/unprovable nonsense. The prosecution rests.
cevink »

Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:02 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 1

Luckily, I save my posts in a text files to combat idiots like you:

oh my, sooooo many flaws in this poorly fact-checked piece of wishful thinking. If this is the best that the ID/creationist crowd can do, get used to your ideas being relegated to the confines of uber-fundie webloids. This movie can no more convince your average joe that life was created by a flying spaghetti monster than it can convince a majority of Americans that the sun revolves around the earth...an idea, which to my knowledge, you might still hold dear.
cevink »

Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:57 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 2

ah...marking posts as inappropriate; the last refuge of someone who cannot make a logical argument for ID/creationism/unprovable nonsense. The prosecution rests.
HAWK49 »

Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:32 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

steveh20;
Pehaps in the furture we could have a good conversation. I do believe this thread is just about played itself out.

Have a Blessed evening

Hawk49
seedplanter »

Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:15 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Just got back from watching the movie. Mr. Stein did a good job, but I was disappointed that it wasn't as exciting as his web sight were he was wearing shorts and a tie. I would have enjoyed watching him interview Dawkins in that outfit; it would have been difficult to keep a straight face. I did not know that Stein was Jewish.

I hardly saw anything terribly insulting about the movie other than the fact that I.D. is being reduced to religious faith, while naturalism continues to rule the roost. All the time Neo-Darwinists are spending trying to refute the film seems to be a waste of time and energy. Why flag them? Let them continue their escapades, what else do they have to live for then science? Everybody needs something to live for. How would you like it if they tried to run your church? Science is after all based on presumptuous interpretations that arise from beliefs.
cevink »

Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:53 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

And regarding Mr. Sternberg, he was *not* drummed out of the Smithsonian...they had him change offices and updated the keys to a card system. The request to turn in his keys was in order to provide him with a new key card badge....the trashing he received from senior scientists was deserved, but also contained only in private emails. Mr. Sternberg's article was not properly reviewed by any of the people considered experts in the fields he was discussing, and lacking in any credibility....it was later withdrawn as having any merit. Expelled! contains so much factual misinformation, I hardly know where to begin.
cevink »

Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:47 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 3

Really? You take Genesis literally? So....you believe in the geocentric model of our solar system?

[shudder]

Please stick to pastoring youth and stay far afield from teaching or science.
steveh20 »

Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:41 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Hello HAWK49
Many thanks for your reply to my comment.
Regards
Steve
agentorangex »

Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:11 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

someone please contact CP and have them re-allow the flagged posts, this is horrid. Censorship again? How pathetic.
The Scotsman »

Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:17 am Agree: 2 Disagree: 3

Mr, Stier,

We opened it up to our youth group and their families and a lot of them showed up. We then opened it up to the remainder of the church and we had a pretty full theater! I definitely agree with you that it is a great conversation starter!

I thought Ben Stein and his crew did a pretty good job with the documentary. If in fact, the scientists interviewed, are claiming that they were misled, I believe it is only because they were exposed for what they truly are.

The following is an excerpt from my review of the film.

I just returned from watching Ben Stein's new controversial movie, Expelled. This movie was made to ensure that that American people had a better understanding of both secular view of the origins of life including Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, intelligent Design and Creation. There are proponents on each side of the equation, who adamantly adhere to their own beliefs and understanding of how life started on earth.

Ben Stein took a somewhat lighthearted approach to engage academia from both sides of the fence, to get their opinions, ideas, beliefs and understandings on the table. Mr. Stein interviewed many doctors and professors of universities, biological scientists, and population geneticists from around the globe.

Read full article at: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/725485/ben_stein_expelled.html
aritonang »

Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:43 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

steve, please stop flagging everbody
aritonang »

Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:39 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Hey, whats with all this flagging?
steveh20 »

Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:36 am Agree: 2 Disagree: 2

Rejoice when they speak badly about you in my name??

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins
GeorgeX »

Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:43 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

HAWK49,

Why should anyone respond to your comments? Our comments are being censored. These comments will probably be censored. What are you going to do about it? Do you want to contact christianpost.com and complain about it? Or do you approve of censorship? Our comments should be restored. Until my comments, and the comments of other people who like science, are restored, there is no reason for anyone to talk to you or anyone else.
HAWK49 »

Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:36 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

Steveh20;
yes, it was that article by Steve Meyer's of Discovery Institute. And the evolutionist editor caught the wrath and was expelled;

What happens when an editor of a technical biology journal decides, along with others, to publish the first peer-reviewed technical article that casts doubt on Darwin and lays out the evidence for an intelligent designer?

In the case of Richard Sternberg, a Smithsonian research associate and former managing editor of the independent journal called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, it meant being cast out of the prestigious Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Shortly after publishing the article “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution lashed out at Sternberg, calling him a “shoddy scientist” and a “closet Bible thumper,” according to a Washington Post article (August 19).
GeorgeX »

Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:21 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

If there was any Christian who had any moral values at all, he would contact the Christian Post and demand that the comments of agentorangex and myself be restored. I don't expect that to happen because all Christians are immoral. Extremely immoral. Prove me wrong.
GeorgeX »

Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:14 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

"Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous Posts."

Notice it doesn't say anything about flagging comments just because you disagree with them.

Christians have a terrible reputation because they earned it. They make a movie about censorship called "Expelled" but nobody loves censorship more than the Christians. It's fair to say Christians are hypocrites.

hypocrisy: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess.
GeorgeX »

Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:08 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

Christians are afraid of science. They are so terrified of science they censor anyone who likes science.
GeorgeX »

Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:02 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Christians love censorship.
GeorgeX »

Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:01 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

agentorangex, both you and I were expelled. Isn't that interesting?
GeorgeX »

Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:45 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Ken Miller is a theist and a biologist. He's a very honest person. He has a very special skill. He can make complicated scientific facts easy to understand.

Any creationist who spends 30 minutes reading Ken Miller's explanation of biological evolution and the evidence for it at the Dover trial would no longer be a creationist.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day1am2.html
agentorangex »

Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:41 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

HAWK,

"They are just evolutionist interpretations"

Are you kidding? Well, you're not fooling anyone but yourself. You complained about 'no intermediate forms' and now that they are apparent for all to witness, exist in 'just the correct geological strata' to support the notion of evolution, you aren't having it?

Riddle me this HAWK, if evolution isn't the explanation, why were all those quasi human/apes doing roaming around some 2 million years ago?

If evolution isn't the case, we shouldn't be finding any of these anywhere, but we do. We shouldn't find fossils of such quasi human/apes, nor should we find genetic evidence which also supports common ancestry, but alas they exist. How one honestly rejects fossils you can physically hold in your hands, measure and test is beyond me.

And on a lesser note, Expelled apparently isn't doing too well after only a few nights.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/expelled-the-fi.html#more
GeorgeX »

Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:24 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

HyperionOverseer, nobody is screaming at you to not to see the anti-science movie. Scientists are just pointing out how dishonest and ignorant it is. I noticed the producers of this movie, and the actor Ben Stein, know nothing about biology. Also, their dishonesty is documented here:

http://www.expelledexposed.com/
steveh20 »

Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:00 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Can't wait to see it myself either, not certain if they'll rlease it in England though we're a bit more clued up here.
steveh20 »

Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:21 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Would that be one of the papers written by Stepeh Myers who is senior fellow at the centre for science aqnd culture at the discovery institue, Seattle? I only ask because this socity has already published an article by him in its proceedings (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239).

And for the recored, the Cambrian explosion is more a slang term than just an "apperance of sudden life" it just means that over a brief geological period ( 80 - 9 Ma) multicellular life developed quickly, but this can be followed in the rocks.

Regards

Steve
HAWK49 »

Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:46 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 2

A paper published recently in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington DC concluded that the so-called Cambrian explosion, the sudden appearance of new life forms about 530 million years ago, could best be understood in terms of an intelligent design. The paper was peer reviewed by 3 prominent evolutionary biologists. The paper answered questions raised by evolutionary biologists:
"As it happens, evolutionists Muller and Newman are not alone in this judgment. In the last decade or so a host of scientific essays and books have questioned the efficacy of selection and mutation as a mechanism for generating morphological novelty, as even a brief literature survey will establish. Thomson (1992:107) expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate via minor phenotypic changes at the population genetic level. Miklos (1993:29) argued that neo-Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and complexity. Gilbert et al. (1996) attempted to develop a new theory of evolutionary mechanisms to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argued, could not adequately explain macroevolution. As they put it in a memorable summary of the situation: “starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its (neo-Darwinism's) adequacy in explaining evolution."

Evolutionist Eugenie Scott pinned down the problem; people will think Darwinian evolution is scientifically weak; Avoid debates!

.
Wilderness1 »

Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:08 am Agree: 2 Disagree: 2

I believe that all the wisest men in the world for the six thousand years since it is commonly supposed to have been created, or six hundred thousand million years, or any number more, as I believe, have been altogether wrong, and that it has been reserved for me in this so-called nineteenth century to set them all right and lay down the law for ever. (All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Morris, B.A., 1877)

“…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).
GeorgeX »

Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:21 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

http://tinyurl.com/3qmgwt

It will soon be 200 years since the birth of Charles Darwin and 150 years since the publication of On the Origin of Species, arguably the most important book ever written. In it, Darwin outlined an idea that many still find shocking – that all life on Earth, including human life, evolved through natural selection.

Darwin presented compelling evidence for evolution in On the Origin and, since his time, the case has become overwhelming. Countless fossil discoveries allow us to trace the evolution of today's organisms from earlier forms. DNA sequencing has confirmed beyond any doubt that all living creatures share a common origin. Innumerable examples of evolution in action can be seen all around us, from the pollution-matching pepper moth to fast-changing viruses such as HIV and H5N1 bird flu. Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth.
steveh20 »

Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:41 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

Dear savedsinner
It may interest you to know that my mum had eyes in the back of her head!!
:-P
Steve

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

Comment on this story