“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” the pro-intelligent design documentary featuring actor Ben Stein, made history this weekend as it propelled full speed into the top 10 box office. It opened as the widest and one of the most commercially successful releases for any documentary film.
In an impressive opening weekend, the film debuted at No. 9 at the box office, earning a respectable $3.2 million while only appearing on 1,052 screens.
“Leatherheads,” the story of a struggling football team based in Duluth, Minnesota, and written and directed by George Clooney, trailed the new documentary film, placing at only No. 10 its third week at the box office, despite showing at over twice as many screens.
Although the new pro-intelligent design documentary had struggled with a reported marketing and production budget that ranged only in the single digit millions – a miniscule figure compared to the standard $117 million regularly burned by Hollywood productions – the film proved to defy expectations and panning by critics.
From the beginning of its conception, the film had been heavily criticized by scientists who dismissed the film as inaccurate, misleading, and dishonest in its portrayal of the shortcomings of evolution.
Reviewers were also among the film’s vocal critics, and in an article written for the Orlando Sentinel, Roger Moore was among those who believed the film would fail commercially, describing the film as a “mockery.”
“'Expelled’ is a full-on, amply budgeted Michael Moore-styled mockery of evolution, a film that dresses creationist crackpottery in an ‘intelligent design’ leisure suit and tries to make the fact that it's not given credence in schools a matter of ‘academic freedom,’” Moore wrote in his description of the film.
Producers of the film, however, had hoped that while disadvantaged and outmanned in the realm of Hollywood, active marketing and outreach with Christian groups and homeschoolers could help propel the movie, in the manner of David versus Goliath, into a box office hit – a strategy that appears to have worked.
In one such campaign, the producers of the film offered to award as much as $1,000 in a contest among church groups to bring the largest crowds to see the film.
Christian groups in general proved to be receptive to the film’s message.
Anthony Horvath, executive director of the Athanatos Christian Ministry, an online apologetics academy dedicated to the defense of the Christian faith, praised the film.
"The outrage expressed by the atheistic community at Ben Stein's movie, ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’ has been so palpable you could bottle it up and sell it as an energy drink. They are practically foaming at the mouth," he said in a statement.
"The blogosphere reveals the utter disdain that the hard core atheists have for anyone who merely suggests that it might be possible to scientifically detect design. If all Stein's movie accomplishes is revealing more publicly what many in the scientific community have been saying quietly all along, that is a major accomplishment,” he added.
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, gave the film a thumbs up, commenting, "I think it should be required viewing for anyone who wants to understand what is going on and what is at stake in the debate over worldviews in this society,” according to Baptist Press. "This is one of these times when you can vote with your pocketbook. You can vote with your economic franchise, and Hollywood will listen when they see the dollar signs.”
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” is a feature-length documentary film about researchers, professors, and academics who claim to have been marginalized, silenced, or threatened with academic expulsion because of their challenges to some or all parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Makers of the documentary said the movie doesn't seek to champion intelligent design as the sole truth but calls for more academic freedom, where challenges to any scientific theory including Darwinism would be fairly considered.
RSS
Tarzan,
If you’re interested in other such examples of intermediates or those which can be used as examples bridges one group to another group I recommend researching groups like the early reptiles and their descendants the mammal like reptiles and their descendants the reptile like mammals. With regards to these groups, its sometimes hard to identify which are clearly reptile and clearly mammal as the intermediates are so numerous, so numerous in fact that paleontologists continue to debate on where the lines are drawn between such large groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynodont
“... do you know if the Archaeopteryx was able to breed with others within it's species?”
Well of course it would have been able to, members of the same species by definition are able to breed amongst and with each others of the same species. Some members of one species can interbreed with another closely related species (lions and tigers or horses and donkies), but they generally reproduce with difficulty or produce infertile offspring so the lineage can’t continue with this hybrid, be it a Liger or Mule. With this in mind, it’s at possible that Archaeopteryx was not only able to mate with those of its own species, but also those genetically close enough, but again the offspring would be infertile.
From the site you referenced – http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_07.html
“Two important points evolutionary biologists rely on when claiming Archaeopteryx was a transitional form, are the claws on its wings and its teeth.”
Take all the intermediate features, and how closely they demonstrate Archaeopteryx and those of its type as being a transitional species. No modern birds have teeth, but the first birds did, not just teeth either, but notable reptilian teeth. No modern birds have a reptile like head and no beak/bill either like Archaeopteryx and others like it. No modern have a long tail with feathers either, but the first birds did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
“shoot me that info on lobe finned fish and tetrapods,”
You can find some on talkorigins, but here are some tidbits. I think PBS or Nova’s site also has some info on them. Refer to the articles from Wiki and not just the wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panderichthys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega
http://pandasthumb.org/links.html
agentorangex... i know the difference between micro and macro, sorry if i worded incorrectly... i did read up on theropod dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx... saw 2 opposing viewpoints
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_07.html
... do you know if the Archaeopteryx was able to breed with others within it's species?
... shoot me that info on lobe finned fish and tetrapods, would be interesting reading... thanks for the kind replies
Tarzan,
Re-read what the differences are between macro and micro evolution. Micro evolution is the allelic genetic variance from generation to generation, like how your parents might have blue eyes, while you have brown, or how the offspring of a black and white person will have such a variance from its parents in many respects.
Macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level boundary, so anytime a species diversifies into a new species, you have macro evolution. This is when genetically speaking, a species becomes isolated and can’t breed with its former ancestor, at this point each species goes on it’s own genetic trajectory.
“but i didnt see any pigs with wings... elephants with giraffe necks”
These are examples and not realistic ones, however a better example is reviewing extinct species, and other extinct species, which lived more recently, and then extant (living) species and showing their common ancestry. For this I suggest looking at major animal groups, like theropod dinosaurs and birds, and then such examples of species like Archaeopteryx, which exhibited transitional features between both groups.
Another example would be reviewing the transitionals between lobe finned fish and early amphibian tetrapods. If you’d like the examples for these, please ask, I’ll cite them.
Another example would some interesting apes from Africa who began walking upright and showed a progressive use of tools and growing of the cranium and development of culture.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
agentorangex, i read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and all i saw was micro evolution.... plants mutating into different kind of plants.. flies mutating into differing flies... but i didnt see any pigs with wings... elephants with giraffe necks... etc
“I don't know that it is not falsifiable, I mean I.D. is not "one" theory in the same way that evolution is.”
ID folk say it’s a theory and as such it should have many avenues from which it can pull its evidence from and be falsifiable and falsified from, just like how evolution pulls from many different avenues of knowledge and based on them and their falsifiability they and it can be falsified. How is ID falsifiable?
“is highly unlikely that some random process would lead to a concious and reasoning being like us (yes yes, it is not really random because of Natural selection, but honestly, there is no reason why organisms should have desired to form into a highly innefficient "animal" like a human being”
Firstly, you’re wrong animals don’t ‘desire to change’ in accordance with evolution, their change is the result of external forces, conditions and environmental pressures, most of which they absolutely no direct control over and due to their lacking control the only course of action they have to continue to exist is to change.
“it seems evolution is getting worse and worse in terms of efficiency and living capability”
How do you mean, elaborate please. Evolution for a given animal makes a certain animal(s) more apt of survive in a given environment, but environments aren’t static and as such animals continually have to adapt. Perhaps bacteria are the best ‘all suited’ of all animals to survive all habitats, virtually all animals are local their niche, biome and this is where they thrive, outside of it, food and resource competition makes a living harder.
“Also, origins is a problem for evolution”
How? Evolution would still be a viable concept regardless if aliens engineered it, god poofed it, or if it arose naturally, in the end evolution as a process still holds water. Evolution only seems to be a problem for those that expect evolution to explain origins, but alas it does not.
“I reject natural selection on a common sense basis, rather I can accept a form of evolution which is based and determined in "God's Will".’
Reject NS you might, but the problem is as it pertains to ‘Science’ and how ‘god’s will’ is totally unfalsifiable and as such can’t be explained in a scientific manner and this is the problem ID faces and it can’t explain the designer for fear of being called religion. So what ‘common sense’ basis reveals to you NS isn’t tenable as an explanation for evolution?
For instance, how does ID explain ERV’s and human chromosome 2 fusion in a scientific manner? Surely ‘the designer made it that way’ isn’t a scientific explanation as its not falsifiable.
“From the brief viewing of various I.D. proponents websites that I have visited, I can honestly say that they do not argue from lack of evidence,”
They don’t? The notion of IC is based squarely on personal incredulity and ignorance. ‘ I don’t know how it could have evolved, so a designer MUSTA dun it’. That sums of the arguments for IC pretty much. The instances of IC Behe refers to have been addressed and shown to have evolutionary pathways, and yet still I hear time and again how I am supposed to be in awe of the complexity of the flagella or the immune system.
‘take it up with them.’
Or just watch Ken Miller address Behe’s argument for IC here…
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaHcsGzyp4A
“it seems that the anti-I.D. side spends a lot of time on this idea that I.D. is a "god-of-the-gaps" theory and what not, I have rarely see them rely on such ideas,”
How is arguing for IC not an argument from god of the gaps again? Look at how all the examples Behe has given have been shown to have evolutionary explanations and in the end Behe is the one looking not too wise in defining them as IC and he did so chiefly b/c ‘he couldn’t see how evolution could make sense of it’.
‘I think the ID folks see mass media and PR as a last resort? Perhaps this is another baseless attack...”
how’s it an attack, it’s the truth. ID lost in peer reviewed science journals? Check. Lost in court to have it injected into classrooms? Check. Last resort is to mass media and PR
‘Ben Stein said that he would love for both sides to sit down and discuss and allow ID ideas to be put to the test,”
They’ve been put to the test and each time have fallen just like William Paley’s old watchmaker arguments. SSDD.
“say baseless because they are not based on the actual ID perspective”
Well, lets hear some actual SCIENTIFIC evidence with respect to ID that stands up to testing and critique. The way you talk it’s just overflowing, so lets hear some. I’ll wait….
"Hate to burst your bubble, but I.D. is in fact just as falsifiable as Neo-Darwinian evolution."
Hate to burst your bubble, but simply stating it's falsifiable doesn't make it so. Show HOW it's falsifiable based on it's own evidence and testing.
Correction: There are many theories in Evolutionary thought, but they are not so wide in explanation (at least as far as I have seen) as ID theory.
Agentorange (Part 1),
I will briefly respond here, thanks for your posts though!
"Firstly, ID isn’t even a valid theory, its not even falsifiable. Evolutionary theory can make testable, falsifiable predictions which ID can’t be used to explain. How does ID explain ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2 in a falsifiable manner? ‘The designer made it that way’ isn’t falsifiable and as such isn’t Science. What is the intrinsic value in assuming something to be designed?"
I don't know that it is not falsifiable, I mean I.D. is not "one" theory in the same way that evolution is. I.D. ranges from Theistic Evolution to 6-Day Creationism. My position is closer to a "theistic" evolution, and yes there are "atheistic" and "theistic" branches of evolution. Personally, I have near zero training in science and therefore I am not qualified to debate any specifics. However common sense leads me to believe that it is highly unlikely that some random process would lead to a concious and reasoning being like us (yes yes, it is not really random because of Natural selection, but honestly, there is no reason why organisms should have desired to form into a highly innefficient "animal" like a human being, it seems evolution is getting worse and worse in terms of efficiency and living capability). Also, origins is a problem for evolution, whether or not evolution deals with it does not matter, because there was an origin and that origin will vastly effect the way we interpret data and look for answers regarding evolution. ERVs and Chromosomes aside.
That being said, perhaps there is in fact good evidence for evolution, big deal!? I reject natural selection on a common sense basis, rather I can accept a form of evolution which is based and determined in "God's Will". This is Intelligent Design. Perhaps you can substitute an alien for God, as Richard Dawkins apparently has done (still waiting for substantiation of that though) and Watson, from Watson and Crick most certainly assumed.
Agentorange (Part 2)
"B/c ID argues from gaps of ignorance, it’s not based on actual evidence, but lacking evidence."
From the brief viewing of various I.D. proponents websites that I have visited, I can honestly say that they do not argue from lack of evidence, but what they believe is evidence supporting their position. You may disagree, but you should take it up with them. Anyways, it seems that the anti-I.D. side spends a lot of time on this idea that I.D. is a "god-of-the-gaps" theory and what not, I have rarely see them rely on such ideas, except when they are pointing out supposed holes in evolutionary theory. This is a baseless attack, and is not valid.
"We will adopt a new science theory (ID included) IF it’s supported by lots of evidence and tons of critique and has withstood the normal testing to be deemed scientific."
I have never heard an ID proponent call for adopting a new theory, only to discuss ideas.
"But ID folk don’t want to go that route, instead of actually supporting it in court or showing all the evidence and testing supporting it then try their only tactic – mass media and PR campaigns."
I think the ID folks see mass media and PR as a last resort? Perhaps this is another baseless attack... Anyways, Ben Stein said that he would love for both sides to sit down and discuss and allow ID ideas to be put to the test, and he said if they are really as fraudulent as Evolutionists claim then they can be blown away. Why would Stein say this if it was able to happen? Perhaps there is a misunderstanding between the two sides...
Anyways, I think this whole debate is laughable and a shame. If I were a brilliant scientist on either side I would say "Hey let us discuss and reason and come to a conclusion" So far, I haven't been hearing that from the Evolutionist side, I just hear a lot of baseless attacks. (I say baseless because they are not based on the actual ID perspective, they are based on ignorance thereof, and they really really are).
Hate to burst your bubble, but I.D. is in fact just as falsifiable as Neo-Darwinian evolution.
seed,
“You speak clearly here that it is the best model that naturalism has to date”
Seedy, all science is based on the natural world, as soon as you include the super natural into the equation to explain things it ceases to be Science. This is why calling is ‘naturalism’ as if its comparable to other isms is wrong and horrid logic.
“They see certain DNA that seems to demonstrate common decent.”
Certain DNA? The sheet fact that DNA is a common coded heredity passed down each generation only adds more evidence for evolution, for if it didn’t exist it would he hard if not impossible to explain how species change in response to their environment. And to you, how can you make sense of such evidence but by inferring such evolution or common descent? Surely were evolution and common descent not to be valid we would have found it to be falsified on many fronts, but after finding genetics we’ve found it to fill in further gaps and define more details only reaffirming current knowledge of evolutionary biology.
“They see various changes in beaks and colors as well as in bacteria that they interpret to imply natural selection and random genetic mutations are our beneficiaries.’
So what is your alternative explanation, that some super duper ID is magically controlling the beak sizes and allowing bacteria to magically have the ability to all of a sudden digest nylon? Natural Selection is a natural process, just like the coming and going of the weather, there need not be string pulling. How is such a hypothesis of ID working on such micro levels even testable or falsifiable?
“But it is a valid question, one which is essential to evolution.”
Sure it’s a valid question, we don’t know how yet, but does not knowing how rule out evolution once life exists? No, it most certainly doesn’t.
“Myers article was not even supposed to be allowed to be peer reviewed, that was a slip in the system so to speak.”
And Behe? Were his ideas refused an open forum? No, they weren’t. His idea of IC from ‘Darwin’s Black box’ have been addressed in literature and only fools still use the flagella and others as instance for ID.
“gravity is a constant force which we can feel and test virtually any time,”
and the evolutionary process is one we can test everyday in the labs and based on such knowledge can make falsifiable predictions, even regarding where we should find certain intermediate forms like Tiktaalik. Now why should we be able to make such a prediction of where/when such transitional forms should exist unless such evolution at the macro level are indeed true? Additionally, genetic evidence like ERV’s and human chromosome 2 fusion can only be explained by inferring such macro-evolutionary changes. Again, these are facts and such facts only make sense in light of large macro changes over time.
Chris333
“Perhaps an example of something that evolutionary theory gives us, which ID cannot?”
Firstly, ID isn’t even a valid theory, its not even falsifiable. Evolutionary theory can make testable, falsifiable predictions which ID can’t be used to explain. How does ID explain ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2 in a falsifiable manner? ‘The designer made it that way’ isn’t falsifiable and as such isn’t Science. What is the intrinsic value in assuming something to be designed?
“until then I will laugh at you, hahahaha"”
No chris, if ID is actually supported by actual evidence and actual testing it will be a form of science regardless of how hard anyone tries to ignore it. B/c ID argues from gaps of ignorance, it’s not based on actual evidence, but lacking evidence.
“Fine, now lets talk about holes in the evolution theory, and lets talk about how and if they can be explained using the evolutionary theory, or if some new theory should be introduced, that is what science is about right?”
You lead off, go ahead pick the areas in which evolutionary theory can’t yet explain. Don’t cry, now is your chance, pick something it can’t legitimately explain. We will adopt a new science theory (ID included) IF it’s supported by lots of evidence and tons of critique and has withstood the normal testing to be deemed scientific. But ID folk don’t want to go that route, instead of actually supporting it in court or showing all the evidence and testing supporting it then try their only tactic – mass media and PR campaigns.
Good points Chris. The fact is is that Neo-Darwinism may never be capable of actually being proven in as a historical fact. Here, the naturalist must take it by faith. They see certain DNA that seems to demonstrate common decent. They see various changes in beaks and colors as well as in bacteria that they interpret to imply natural selection and random genetic mutations are our beneficiaries. All the while numerous skepticism remains in their thinking regarding the historical evidence surrounding the Nazarene. Never mind the changed lives. The hundreds of prophecies are to ancient to understand nor can the texts be reliable. It is interesting indeed the way evidence can be rallied behind while other evidence can be shrugged off without a moments notice.
To presuppose evolution to the detriment of scientific research only leads to the degradation of science and the trustworthiness it exerts in the community.
You speak clearly here that it is the best model that naturalism has to date. This speaks to the issue that seems to be lost in the academic community. If this simple concept was nailed down, I think that it would do wonders for scientific progress. Until it is one hundred percent certain, it has the power to do indeterminable harm.
Agent, your list only reveals the reality of changes, not the benefits of teaching evolution. All creationists worth their credentials recognize changes. While it is debated within creationists and ID proponents exactly what these changes constitute, neither deny them.
Agentorange continued,
"Right, but like i'd said before, with regards to evolution working as a process or not, it matters not how life originated, so essentially it's a non-factor in determining if evolution be true or not. "
But it is a valid question, one which is essential to evolution. Still, I believe that ID proponents by and large have more problems than just origins.
"Myers has submitted an article to peer review (free speech) and it was promptly destroyed"
Myers article was not even supposed to be allowed to be peer reviewed, that was a slip in the system so to speak. It is one thing to give objective criticism, it is another to outrightly ban an idea from scientific inquiry.
"And do we not have facts about the holocaust, gettysburg adress, WWII, gravitation, heliocentrism, and evolution? Ahh, but we do and as such we are responsible to teach the facts as this is what is supported."
WWII happened recently and we have historical documents, places and people to verify what happened, gravity is a constant force which we can feel and test virtually any time, heliocentrism is not as easy to test as gravity, but it can be known by simple observation and record. Evolution is a process that takes millions of years, and cannot be seen today, the only way to access said facts is by labratory. Certainly there are facts supporting it, but it is not comparable to the others you mentioned, even on a basic level.
Agentorange,
"Agriculutture (genetically modified crops), medicine (evolutionary techniques for medicines), healthcare ( identifying unique genes in hosts which corelate to diseases or make the host immune to them) want more?"
I believe that ID does not exclude any of the mentioned benefits of evolutionary theory, as such it would not matter which theory one espoused, the only thing that would change is the perspective or means of reaching the conclusion. Perhaps an example of something that evolutionary theory gives us, which ID cannot?
"To get to that level it has to EARN its way, by showing EVIDENCE and TESTING which supports their claims. Simply putting it into the ring to be shredded wont advance anything, we need sound hypothesis which can be supported by plenty of evidence and produce results. ID has had a few articles go before the peer reviewed journals, alas they were SHREDED for lacking evidence"
This seems very unscientific, it is basically like someone saying, "Hey professor, I have a theory about such and such" To which the professor abruptly responds, "You are so stupid, how could you have a theory about this, just by the title of your theory I can see that there is no evidence for it, hahaha, I am so smart and superior, hahaha, you have to earn your way, until then I will laugh at you, hahahaha"
"AGAIN, Stein is Wrong here. Theories in science have boundaries on what they can and can't explain, no single theory can explain all facets of all things all at once. Theories in science are like collective pieces of a pie of truth which collectively explain the universe."
Fine, now lets talk about holes in the evolution theory, and lets talk about how and if they can be explained using the evolutionary theory, or if some new theory should be introduced, that is what science is about right? (Wait, maybe I am mistaken, maybe science just maintains the old forms of thought FOREVER)
"it is about allowing freedom of speech and ideas"
In science when an idea is supported by evidence and tests then and only then is it taught in classes. Myers has submitted an article to peer review (free speech) and it was promptly destroyed. Don't give me the 'free speech' nonsense, like none from the evolutionary side aren't being censored or haven't lost their jobs over teaching it. Oh but Stein neglects to mention how Chris Comer was fired for teaching evolution, o well, I guess you're right he's not pro-ID.
"Possibly, but the Holocaust is not comparable to a scientific theory, it is a historical fact."
And do we not have facts about the holocaust, gettysburg adress, WWII, gravitation, heliocentrism, and evolution? Ahh, but we do and as such we are responsible to teach the facts as this is what is supported.
seedplanter,
"I think that most creationists and I.D. advocates would be happy if at least the criticisms of evolution be addressed as well as alternatives reviewed. "
We should teach what the evidence supports and is well tested and not vacous gaps of ignorance which what ID hides in. Science works by teaching what the evidence supports and can answer, not by pointing out the small gaps of nominal things that we've yet to explain.
"Maybe you can explain how evolution “helps” scientific progress "
Agriculutture (genetically modified crops), medicine (evolutionary techniques for medicines), healthcare ( identifying unique genes in hosts which corelate to diseases or make the host immune to them) want more?
"If ID is so foolish, why not let it be peer reviewed and put into the scientific arena so that it can be blown away and proven to be so ridiculous?" (summarized) Well, why not? "
To get to that level it has to EARN its way, by showing EVIDENCE and TESTING which supports their claims. Simply putting it into the ring to be shredded wont advance anything, we need sound hypothesis which can be supported by plenty of evidence and produce results. ID has had a few articles go before the peer reviewed journals, alas they were SHREDED for lacking evidence.
"Here I think that Stein is noting a lack of explanatory power in the theory of evolution."
AGAIN, Stein is Wrong here. Theories in science have boundaries on what they can and can't explain, no single theory can explain all facets of all things all at once. Theories in science are like collective pieces of a pie of truth which collectively explain the universe.
"while evolutionists say that they are not concerned with origins, they do say a great deal about it"
Right, but like i'd said before, with regards to evolution working as a process or not, it matters not how life originated, so essentially it's a non-factor in determining if evolution be true or not.
Agent,
Thank you for addressing the argument that I posed to dongard in his claims that I.D. Proponents are attempting to prosecute evolutionists or whatever he was ranting about. My point to ifeelfine regarding the equal time advocates is merely that while many creationists have pushed for such public school amendments it is not so within the entire scope of creation scientists. I think that most creationists and I.D. advocates would be happy if at least the criticisms of evolution be addressed as well as alternatives reviewed. I think that a typical 55 minute class time would be more than sufficient time to cover the issues debated for what little impact it has in the realm of scientific thought. Actually, I don’t really even see the dire need for diving into the depths of evolution as far as practicality is concerned. I know that that one will really put you off. Maybe you can explain how evolution “helps” scientific progress (outside of pushing a natural materialism philosophy on unsuspecting).
dongard,
Is that really the headlines, or are you predicting? Also, did you intentionally misspell "expelled" as a pun on words? (These are serious questions)
Agentorange,
"it’s not about atheists chris, it’s about science, what it is and what it isn’t and how Expelled directly targets evolution of all science realms."
I don't see it as such. The point of expelled (according to the producers) is not to put forth Intelligent Design as a theory, it is rather to open up the scientific community for reflective criticism, the bedrock of science. I saw an interview of Ben Stein and Glen Beck, (don't go crazy all at once) and Ben Stein said, "If ID is so foolish, why not let it be peer reviewed and put into the scientific arena so that it can be blown away and proven to be so ridiculous?" (summarized) Well, why not?
"the concern is that some will confuse evolution with relating to the origins of life or the origins of the cosmos as Stein proclaims it does"
Here I think that Stein is noting a lack of explanatory power in the theory of evolution. Evolutionists may throw up there hands and say, "We don't know what happened at the exact beginning" But they do say that life originated from a single cell. Also, while evolutionists say that they are not concerned with origins, they do say a great deal about it (or at least they traditionally have).
"Then you do not stand for truth. We should all stand for what is based on evidence as best supported."
I did not say that I would not protest, or denounce such a movie, I said I would not have a hissy fit and try to sue them. But the issue here is not "not standing up for what evidence supports" it is about allowing freedom of speech and ideas.
"You’d probably feel different were you a Jew and a film was made called ‘The Holocaust hoax’ right?"
Possibly, but the Holocaust is not comparable to a scientific theory, it is a historical fact. Still, I would not try to ban the holocaust-deniers from speaking their minds, rather I would let them present their evidence, and then blow it away, as the scientific community ought to do, instead of ostracizing and discriminating against ID proponents.
seedplanter,
“I.D. “scientists” (last time I checked Michael Behe wasn’t attending Loyola to become a priest) want to force people to believe in creationism under the penalty of law.”
Ever heard of ‘The Wedge Document’? Sure, it’s not arguing for under penalty of law, but the disclosure of the wedge document is hard to shallow as their motives are quite clear.
“Also please document where any I.D. advocate is demanding “equal time.”
No offense Seed, but you’re coming off as mighty naïve of it all. The very notion of ‘equal time’ and ‘teach the controversy’ were coined directly as consequence since the IDiots lost in Dover in 2005. Do some Googling and you’ll be able to find athe discovery institutes offering a ‘how to teach the controversy legally’ video.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy
‘“I.D. can be falsified if plausible natural mechanisms can be devised to explain all candidates for irreducible complexity...”
The problem with IC is many things can appear to be IC based on our current knowledge of a given system, biological or otherwise. IC essentially argues from gaps of ignorance.
If I can show how instances of IC are found to have evolutionary pathways, that would essentially kill the notion of IC, would it not? Poof then, falsified and they are quite reasonable. (they are long, but worth it)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaHcsGzyp4A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30_u9W6_UWA
'Also please explain to us how evolution is falsifiable."
Find mammal fossils in the Devonian geological strata layer, that and other such finds would erase the notion of certain species derving from other extant extinct ones. Find some bunny fossils in the same layers as the jawless fish and it's about done. it wouldn't kill the theory spot on, but would create some problems explaing how mammals came about before the reptiles and the mammal like reptiles. see where I am going? i can list 27 falsifiable predictions evolution has passed if you'd like.
“but it accurately defined a major problem in education today which is the persecution of scientists who do not see evolutionary theory as a valid explanation for the origins of life.’
I am debating to even comment on this string of words, alas I must, lest you make the same comment again later. Doc, evolutionary theory doesn’t describe, nor does it attempt to, the ORIGINS of LIFE, rather it explains the diversity of life.
“persecution of scientists”
Here are some ‘other’ scientists who’ve been persecuted for teaching evolution. Strange this all didn’t make its way into Expelled. Might as well just go to www.expelledexposed.com
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/nwescientist-bl.html
“Evolution as an explanation for the origin of man is a fabrication meant to substitue for a creator.”
No it’s not. Evolution is biology and it describes how all living things are related to via extended descent, there is no implication that b/c evolution is true god becomes not true. Again, evolution doesn’t explain the origins of life, only the diversity of it.
“Intelligent design does not promote a specific creator”
That’s right, it doesn’t, but it can’t as if it did it couldn’t be taught in schools on grounds about the 1st article In fact it doesn’t even permit anyone to investigate the designer and says that we don’t need to define it to know it exists. Talk about horrid logic. And this is why ID isn’t falsifiable and why it’s not science.
“I must know and believe in random chance evolution”
Evolution isn’t random in totality, it’s more like deterministic. Mutations are random, but overall the processes of evolution isn’t random at all.
Agent, you can be disappointed with the creationists that I referred to, but not me. The simple facts that I have been posting are that I.D. proponents do not refer to the Bible as their 'a priori.'
Your disillusionment is with them, not me. I merely stated for the record that there are in fact creationists, such as Hugh Ross who has not been swayed in the least bit by ID. While he himself may even glean from writings of ID proponents, he in no way subscribes to their theorem. He is not alone.
ifeelfine, would you be so kind as to show exactly where creationists and I.D. “scientists” (last time I checked Michael Behe wasn’t attending Loyola to become a priest) want to force people to believe in creationism under the penalty of law. Also please document where any I.D. advocate is demanding “equal time.” Also please explain to us how evolution is falsifiable. Ah, let me guess, if God steps down from heaven and says, "I DID IT!" For every single bend in the road there is always a promise of some future explanation. We know that Neo-Darwinism retains the copyrights on science because "we believe". Never mind the impracticality of the theory, it is just true, NAS says so!
Thomas B. Fowler and Daniel Kuebler points out in The Evolution Controversy, “I.D. can be falsified if plausible natural mechanisms can be devised to explain all candidates for irreducible complexity...”
Seed,
‘I.D. on the other hand may be seen as another form of creationism to many atheists, but it is not so within the Christian community”
Seed, my opinion of you has fallen. ID is neo-creationism. The very first writings of ID are derived in Pandas and People a formerly YEC book. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People
Having lost in 1987, ‘creationism’ was deemed not legally able to be taught in schools let alone science. At the moment in ’87 Pandas’ changed ‘creator’ to ‘intelligent designer’, refer to the Dover trial in 2005.
ID is simply creationism but they have gutted the notions of a 6000 year old universe/earth, no mention of religions or gods directly, no mention of jesus, admam and eve, the flood, salvation and other biblical themes as they know much of the evidence doesn’t support such things nor are they ‘scientific’. But what is left is the claim that William Paley and some ancient Greeks used, namely the ‘watchmaker’ arguments, essentially arguments from ignorance.
“Many creationists do not support ID at all”
You’re patently ignorant here Seed, the main proponents of ID are in fact creationists. Look at the who’s who in the ID camp and they are virtually all creationists. Albeit they’re aren’t the YEC variety, they are creationists none the less.
‘If atheists claim this movie is so ridiculous, so stupid, so fake, so false, then why are they so angry!?”
it’s not about atheists chris, it’s about science, what it is and what it isn’t and how Expelled directly targets evolution of all science realms.
Chris
“They should be laughing if this is as ridiculous as they say it is.”
We DO laugh at it, but the cause for concern is how most laymen’s are utterly scientifically inept and therefore the concern is that some will confuse evolution with relating to the origins of life or the origins of the cosmos as Stein proclaims it does. We’d have the same concern in a film was put out called ‘Expelled: the controversy over the flat earth and what round earthers are hiding’. The issue is what the evidence shows and how a film like this is intentionally made to mislead, gain a quick buck and not to educate at all- essentially propaganda.
“I would not become outraged and throw curses at a movie made by flat earth proponents, if I did, I would look like a complete fool.”
Then you do not stand for truth. We should all stand for what is based on evidence as best supported. You’d probably feel different were you a Jew and a film was made called ‘The Holocaust hoax’ right? See the dilemma on truth there?
I went to see Expelled this weekend. It was interesting that there were no previews for other movies before it. I suppose they did not want to be connected.
I thought the movie was great. It was not an Indiana Jones adventure flick, but it accurately defined a major problem in education today which is the persecution of scientists who do not see evolutionary theory as a valid explanation for the origins of life. That is what is what the movie is about. It is about the sarcastic, disdainful, dismissive, hateful attitude of evolutionary biologists. They are are so smart and anyone who disagrees is so stupid.
That kind of thinking prevents us from examining the facts of the matter. It stifles inquiry and prevents us from finding real answers. The problem with this bias is that it bleeds into other areas of science.
The best of the of the movie was at the end when Stein said that "truth crushed to the ground will rise again and that no lie can stand forever." Evolution as an explanation for the origin of man is a fabrication meant to substitue for a creator. Intelligent design does not promote a specific creator. It only says that it is hard even impossible to explain the existence of complicated life on random chance selection basis.
I am a physician and I have been asked if it is hard to believe in God since I must know and believe in random chance evolution. My reply is that, since I am a physician and have spent my whole dealing with scientific facts, it is entirely reasonible to believe in an intelligent creator.
headline for this weekend exspelled sinks like a stone at the box office
Ifeelfine,
I am not angry at Dawkins, when he calls Christianity a fairy tale, I don't start making angry protests. Dawkins has an opinion that he is entitled to. However, if Dawkins was deliberately making fun of Christianity, in a way that he knew wasn't true, then I would be somewhat more angry, but I wouldn't call for bans on him or his books.
The Family Guy example is accurate, because from Dawkins' perspective, Christianity (and ID) is a made up ridiculous phenomena, thus he shouldn't take it seriously. Just the same as I don't take flat earther's seriously, even if they came out with a documentary.
Either, Dawkins believes there is something more to Christianity than he is letting on, or he is over reacting.
seedplanter: There is a big distinction between ID and evolution as it relates to "equal time" in the science class - evolution is science and ID is not. No one has answered how ID is falsifiable (which is one part of science and the scientific method). It doesn't deserve equal time because its not science.
Chris333: Your logic is flawed because you would get angry (and say that you have) over perceived slights to Christianity. The Family Guy is an animated comedy which is very different from an educated Dawkins putting down Christianity. I happen to think Dawkins is a brilliant mind but I believe he is wrong about God and it angers me when he calls it a fairy tale, etc. And I know it angers you and others here because posts that tend to be hard on Christianity are especially popular here. So when you put down evolution, of course he is going to get angry - as are others. You need to be a little more self reflective when it comes to some of these topics.
dongard,
"the flat earthers (and yes they do exist) are not trying to throw me in jail, make my union with my partner illegal, and in general expect that everyone should believe under penalty of law there is no other possible answer except that the earth is flat."
I know they exist, it is painful to hear their arguments... nonetheless, I don't know what it is that you might be doing that could give someone the impression you should be in jail, if you have stolen something or killed someone or somesuch, perhaps you should be in jail, if you are in a homosexual relationship then you should not be in jail, the vast majority of Christians do not say otherwise, especially not ID proponents. Intelligent Design has little to do with the homosexual union debate, I for one think that Christians should not worry about what non-Christians do. Also, I have never heard a Christian say that everyone should have to be Christian under penalty of law, and if I did I would seriously doubt that persons faith, as it is completely against Christ's message which was not of this world. Please don't attribute to Christianity what these abusers are saying, I don't call all atheists genocidal maniacs because Stalin was an atheist.
"sorry to say that the same cannot be said for christians. "
Sorry if you got this impression, as a Christian, who spends a great deal of time with Christians, and reading Christian literature, I can honestly say that the vast majority of us have no such ideas.
"you guys sure seem to be in love with using the power of the hereandnow state and have been for centuries. when you argue that tradition counts you also assume the burden of that tradition. "
I think you are confusing pre-Council of Trent Catholicism with all of Christianity, still for the Catholics part, the Pope did commit a Church-wide repentance for these and other things. We (Christians) ask for your forgiveness, but I understand if you are not willing to give it.
Chris
Ifeelfine,
How is my logic wrong? Richard Dawkins says, and many others with him, that ID proponents are idiots who are ignoring well established facts. Then they go on a rampant about how evil we are, and how we are trying to supress the truth.
Anthony Horath describes it as, "The outrage expressed by the atheistic community at Ben Stein's movie, ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’ has been so palpable you could bottle it up and sell it as an energy drink. They are practically foaming at the mouth"
Why? I do not get worked up whenever Family Guy runs another episode with some gross misrepresentation of Christianity. Certainly I feel offended, but if someone were to be debating me, and use family guy as a basis for their argument, I would not get into a hissy fit over it. I would probably laugh and shrug it off. I couldn't take it serious enough to get angry over it. The same applies for movies like "The Davinci Code" I have spoken to people who honestly thought it was a strong argument against Christianity. Granted, I am upset that to this day the Davinci Code website has a blatant lie listed in their facts section, I am not "foaming at the mouth" over it, I feel bad for the people who are decieved by it, much the same way I feel sorry for the people who read tabloids and actually believe it.
In short, I have nothing against Richard Dawkins et al, being upset and protesting this movie, I actually have nothing against them having a "hissy fit" over it. I just can't understand why they go so far, when they say that it is not serious in the first place.
don, are you suggesting that Christians are trying to make nartural evolution illegal in academia? At this point in time many creation proponents are at the same place where Darwinists were during Scopes. Evolutionists were arguing for equal time and not necessarily a total overthrow of what was then the standard text - creationism. That seems to be the same arguement today only in reverse. I.D. on the other hand may be seen as another form of creationism to many atheists, but it is not so within the Christian community. Many creationists do not support ID at all. While there are many YEC proponents that utilize there research, many of them only support them because of a lack of a better alternative at this point. YEC proponents have been locked out completely and the ID proponents are in the same predicament. It is naturalism that is having the hay day in terms of wielding the power of the state.
chris333
your premise is sound, but fortunately the flat earthers (and yes they do exist) are not trying to throw me in jail, make my union with my partner illegal, and in general expect that everyone should believe under penalty of law there is no other possible answer except that the earth is flat. sorry to say that the same cannot be said for christians. for people who want so badly to believe in the afterlife, you guys sure seem to be in love with using the power of the hereandnow state and have been for centuries. when you argue that tradition counts you also assume the burden of that tradition.
Chris: Once again, your logic makes no sense. Substitute Christianity for the movie and see if you would get angry. I would and so would everyone here
If atheists claim this movie is so ridiculous, so stupid, so fake, so false, then why are they so angry!? They should be laughing if this is as ridiculous as they say it is. I would not become outraged and throw curses at a movie made by flat earth proponents, if I did, I would look like a complete fool. Well congratulations Richard Dawkins, et al, you have made fools of yourselves, if you feel your position is superior then laugh it off and let people go see the movie, they prove the movie's point by their reactions.
Never have I seen such illogical rampant responses.
Are you Pentecostal?
As a matter of fact I do come from that perspective, Assemblies of God to be precise. I currently have fellowship at a Missionary Alliance church. I have found it to be enriching spiritually and intellectually. I would prefer a more spiritual emphasized service. The worship is Pentecostal, but the preaching is so refined that it lacks the enthusiasm that entails Pentecostalism. This is not really so different from many AG churches. The emphasis is shifting as the demographics of America are changing.
I don’t think any of the things that you listed as supportive of Mark 16:9-20 depend upon the validity of it being a part of the original autographed copy by Mark. Glossolalia certainly isn’t dependant on Mark, neither is the historical assertion of the miracles set forth there as you yourself provided alternative references to. I don’t think it is relevant to a Pentecostal that Mark 16:9-20 is historical, unless you really think it adds weight in a debate with a cessationalist. Since they would reject it anyway, the best way to use it would be to point out that even if it isn’t in the earliest manuscripts, it at least reveals that the content has not been recently developed by Pentecostals, but is in fact in line with very old traditional views.
Cevink, it is nice to officially meet you. Howard is a very emotional atheist who uses numerous names due to being kicked off CP so often. He went into a rage one time and deleted every single post on every single page on all of the stories that were on the main page. It must have taken him hours. You will recognize him by typical gestures such as claiming Christians believe in magic ferry dust and other imaginative insults. He recently has taken the name Jerry1, the fifteenth name that I am aware of.
....and I have no idea who the Jerrys, Georges, and Howards are, but they are *not* me. If you google cevink, you will find a multitude of things I have written in other forums. I am a regular at Biblelandstudios.com and the forum debates on Origins and evolution. Of course, I think my myspace page kinda proves that I am me, or that I am at least pretending *really* hard.
You guys kill me. Interesting & fun Kevin facts:
I was a pentecostal christian, 4 years as a matter of fact. I left the faith after my pastor gave a sermon claiming he had raised the dead...it was too much for my 13 year old mind to grasp.
I am currently single, but in Star/Patty's case I would demand supermodel looks and an unrivaled cooking ability to make up for the plethora of stupid. If you rate yourself a 9.5 or better and can cook like Emeril, hit me up on myspace (www.myspace.com/cevink)
...I understand the differences between us, you believe and I don't. Other than that, we might be remarkably similar.
I actually thought pattiepie (great name by the way) was Bob, Danny, First, etc.
Star2,
Of course you’re nice, you’ve never given me any reason to think otherwise. Somewhat frustrating to converse with you at times as it's like talking to a brick wall, but otherwsie manners and all I can't complain. you stick to your guns, which from a certain perspective is hard not to respect.
“So you say you could see through the facades of pattiepie because of the way she expressed herself. Well, who did you think you were talking to?”
At first I thought I was talking to a person from the South, evident by her lacking English and being Pentecostal. Though after a while I began to get the feeling this person, Pattiepie, wasn’t legit but was an alter ego of someone I already knew from here, namely you. Of all the people that could personify her, you did the best and so my inkling was that perhaps, just perhaps this is Star2, all along and I decided to play along for a while.
seedplanter
Re: Mark 16:17-18
I personally believe that Mark 16:17-18 are the words of Jesus. The early Church certaintly lived out those signs.
'Casting out devils" : Paul casted out a spirit of divination from a young damsel. The incident is recorded in Acts 16:16-18.
'they shall speak with new tongues' is recorded in Acts 2:4.
'they shall take up serpants...': The incident of Paul be bitten by a venomous snake on the Island Melita and not affected by the snake bite is recorded in Acts 28:3-6.
'they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover': After Paul was bit by that snake, he
laid hands on the father of the island's chief who was sick of fever and he was healed. (Acts 28:8.) Then the other islanders who were sick were also healed by Paul (Act 28:9).
I don't think there is any record of any believer drinking poison and not being hurt by it in the books of Acts. However, not everything the early Church went through was recorded like not everything Jesus did was recorded (John 21:25).
I am Pentecostal. I believe that the miracles that were experienced by the early Church is for today as well.
I have been a personal witness to casting out devils, tongues, and healings. I have not been a personal witness to 'they shall take up serpants and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them'.
Are you Pentecostal?
seedplanter - The underlining attitude towards creationism, God, and Christians. Like Jerry1, he tried to change his writing style but there was too much similarity with GeorgeX, Howard, and etal in how they thought.
Did you think pattiepie was an imposter? If so, who did you think she was? Or did you think she was for real but a little, stupid?
By the way Star2, why do you think cevink is another alias of Howard the lame duck?
He seems a bit to formal in his evolution escapades.
Hey Professor T, are you related to Professor X?
Poor cevink.
seedplanter - no, agentorange liked pattiepie.
seedplanter - well, cevink (Jerry2, Jerry1, GeorgeX, and etal) is really a very knowledgeable guy in his field of interest. But he and I don't see eye to eye on the issues of origins, Jesus, and eternity. He probably would find me very boring and lacking in original ideas. He would want a woman who had ideas!
Now, me I would want to go out with a guy who loved Jesus. cevink doesn't meet the criteria.
Maybe he prefers Pattiepie. He probably finds the slangs appealling.
Look at how grouchy he is all the time. That should be a clue.
Man needs God and man needs woman.
What of it cevink, is star2 in your sights?
I think that is what he's looking for in a date - a debate.
seedplanter - please, a date with cevink? You got to be kidding! He wouldn't like me because I have no original ideas plus I would be preaching to him about his favorite topic - Jesus!
And by the way, geriatrics Jerry is Howard the duck and a lame duck at that.
Personally Star2, I think that cevink is playing rough because he's looking for a date. Watch out, you may be in his sights.
The beauty of "Expelled" is that Ben Stein has shown us that you do not have to get into the public schools to teach people about Creation by Intelligent Design. I am calling on Christians to start buying Creationism and ID books and DVDs for the purpose of giving those books and DVDs to friends and neighbors, especially those with Jr. High and High School age kids. If we are going to take back origins science education from the God-hating Darwinists, we are going to have to circumvent the public education system and take it directly to the people ourselves. Are you on board with me? Please visit my blogsite http://exploringcreationism.blogspot.com God bless you.
cevink
You aren't even worth responding to any more.
You have nothing intelligent to say.
When are you and Jerry1 going to come up with some original ideas?
You guys need a new term to demonize all of the reasonable people who believe that evolution is the scientific explanation for [yadda yadda yadda]...."Evolutionist" doesn't cut it. How about something like "EVOLUTION-ISTA?" or Imperial Evos? Maybe "Islamocommievolushahomos"?
You can always throw a few adjectives in front too, like "Godless [yadda yadda]" or "Heathen [yadda yadda]".
cevink
The latest discussion between pattiepie and agentorange was brought up by agentorange, an evolutionist.
as evidenced here, it always seems the ID crowd loves to change the subject or create distractions when all the fallacious arguments run out...
agentorange - I don't know of anyother person who has addressed the snake scriptures on CP . seedplanter I think said something to you about it just recently in response to your dialog with pattiepie. I disagree with him. ifeelfine72 asked me, star2, about the scripture and I answered.
So you say you could see through the facades of pattiepie because of the way she expressed herself. Well, who did you think you were talking to? I don't think you really knew.
You don't think star2 is nice?
star2, good to hear from you too, and no I wasn't flagging the earlier posts of pattie on this article, I suppose it was you and in your attempts to hide the speech patterns? another red flag was how you cited only her for you reference on the snake thing.
you actually think I and others are so naive to think a person who speaks like jar jar binks with the 'yousa', double negatives and other grammer errors and some how wouldn't see through the facade? c'mon star, what do you take us for, retards?
FYI, in the future try not to continually refer to your alias as being the the nice person, especially when your account is new.
OK, agentorqange - yes pattiepie is star2. It was fun. I created her for a reason to see why I was being flagged all the time when I never said anything that was offensive. I didn't know if it was what I said or that someone was just mad at star2 and wanted to silence her. Well now, I think it is for both reasons.
Everything that pattiepie said was true. God wouldn't let me lie about that.
I am not the only one who has alias on CP. Howard/Dwen and all his other names is king of the imposters.
Pattiepie,
Oh gee, so now it seems your English is all better. Hmmmm. Ok I’ll play along Pattie, *cough Star2 cough*.
So, if I am not a biologist like you say, does this then mean all of which I have stated and reference earlier are therefore worthless, do I have you right? And where did I say that I wasn’t a biologist, I’d like to know when this happened.
“You don't share site with others. You are lying. You have definite writing style.”
So do you star, so do you. You're the only other person on here to appeal to 'gods book doesn't say he made it that way' as a form of explaining your reasoning on why evolution isn't plausable. I find it a little too convienient how all of sudden star is no where to be seen, and yet here you are, like she would be, but you're essentially trying to infer she's some person you know really well by saying she's nice while I don't recall anything from her saying anything nice about you. nice talking with you again star.
agentorangex - you have a big head. You think you are more than what you are.You like biology. But you are not a biologist. You are in the information technology business. star2 said you did. You said you did once on CP.
star2 is nice.
You don't share site with others. You are lying. You have definite writing style.
My english is better now.
You misunderstand what I am talkin about. God don't protect everybody.
I gave you the words God told me to tell you. It is the bottom line.
agentorangex - why do you talk ugly to me? You was nicer until the snake and poison topic came up.
"don't you work?'
What's it to ya?
"I mean you spnd to much time on CP during work hours. Don't you know that you are stealing."
I think you assume to much without even knowing who am I or what it is I do for a living. For all you know I work at nights, or I am a biollogist who blogs while they write up their articles, or I share this account with others who blog in place of me while I am work. In the end it doesn't matter as its not related to the topic at hand. Perhaps you should care less what I do for a living and more on improving you lacking English, yes?
pattie,
" If it is God's will that He protect me then I will be protected. I have faith in that."
So now you're substituting with how you said god saves all those who belive in him, with it being primarly up to him, well, well talk about your twists. Since you have faith in that, go play in traffic or take many extreme risks in life. if your life is continually spared, then I'll pay attention, otherwise I am not impressed.
agentorangex - don't you work? I mean you spend to much time on CP during work hours. Don't you know that you are stealing. Putting down on your time sheet you are doing work for company when you are on CP. That is lying and stealing. Shame on you. You are bad boy.
agentorangex, now you just don't understand anything about spiritual things. If it is God's will that He protect me then I will be protected. I have faith in that.
Creationists all over the country are trying to push creationism into schools and package it as science under the guise of Intelligent Design. The National Center for Science Education is here to put out those fires and keep religion out of our public school science classrooms.
We are here to call out Ben Stein and his ludicrous ideas that are the spotlight of his new movie Expelled, about Intelligent Design. Expelled is a manipulation of lies that repackages religious creationism as Intelligent Design and teaches it as science in public schools. We must stand up to keep religion out of our public schools' science education.
Go to www.ExpelledExposed.com to find out more!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GqNxAzaWBo
Pattiepie,
According to you, anyone who drinks poison by accident and ‘really really believes’ will be safe from harm and death. Do I have you right there?
Ok, that being the case, why did all those people die then with the Jim Jones cult who drank laced kool-aid? Plenty others who’ve followed this quacko too, but not a single one lived from poisoning, gee that’s odd.
summathetes,
Here’s the problem, ID proclaims to be a form of Science when it’s not, its not even falsifiable. And if it’s not falsifiable, it’s certainly isn’t scientific. If it is, show me how.
“If one can try to remove the emotionalism out of the equation they can discover tha ID is not Creationism”
It’s not huh? Well ID certainly isn’t the conventional YEC form of creationism, but it is certainly creationism. Instead of trying to support a young earth and other already long scientifically rejected nonsense, they have opted for the William Paley arguments based on gaps of ignorance.
Pattie,
"If that person gave me something to eat or drink that they put poison in then if I eat it not knowing then God would protect me from being hurt."
Fine, go find someone and be sure to piss them off nice and good and make sure they have access to poisons and after you're poisoned, we'll see what's up.
r3ymus,
“let us view all the evidence how about piltdown man?” Not real, exposed via the scientific method.
”peking man?” aka Homo Erectus, definitely real, we have numerous specimens of Erectus.
”cro magnon?“ aka Homo SAPIEN, as in US, again definitely real, look at all the specimins we have.
”neanderthal man?” aka Homo Neandethalensis, again we have numerous specimens from this species as well.
”how many of these are actually real?” take a look for yourself.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2WoHFc7eE
Fossils withstanding, we also have the genes which vouch for evolution. deal with it.
Agent, the Scripture passage that you and Pattie discussed referring to snakes is not considered a part of the original autograph manuscripts. The last 16 verses in Mark is not found in the earliest extant ms. For those who do include the verses, it is commonly understood that it is not for a Christian to ‘tempt’ God by seeing whether a venomous snake bite would be fatal. There is also another interpretation in which the snake is figurate of Satan. In either case these snake handling circles have been long considered cults by Evangelicals.
A side note, don’t be so overly confident in what you think you know about Pentecostals. Your sum estimation reveals very little knowledge on the subject. The fastest growing denomination in the world has been the Assemblies of God. Why not go down to one where you live and check it out for yourself. The worse thing that could happen is that you get saved, lol. On the serious side, if you dropped in I am sure that you would find it most educational and would even help your dialogues here on CP.
Jerry1 did you just morph into Lomanb71???
“I'm right about biological evolution. I know I'm right. I have the evidence and the entire scientific community on my side.” –Jerry1
Did somebody say geriatrics? Jerry, have you been taking your meds lately? I believe it was cevink that pointed this out as "argumentum ad populum". So far in the midst of all your hubba hubba you have not sighted one single staggering piece of evidence to close your case. You have only argued for common decent while accusing Christians of appealing to the magic man. Hmmmm, I wonder where I’ve heard that one before. You appeal to authority (your own) to substantiate natural materialism and falsely associate the entire scientific community as methodological natural evolutionists; furthermore you use that argument to bolster your claims of Neo-Darwinism. Sounds like you need a little bit of magic yourself if you’re going to convince people with these arguments, until then don’t quite your day job. I thought you said you were an agnostic? I’ve never believed that. You probably use Dawkins for your devotions at night; you talk just as humble as he does. Why don’t you let Jesus take out that heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh? You’ve got to confess that pride and anger and humble yourself. It may take a little time, but it sure beats waiting for evolution to change you, which could take millions of years you know.
When are you going to start flagging all of the posts Jerry1, w00t, Howard, George, oldguy, Dwen, yyyy, xxxx, first, danny2, danny, BobC, BobCu, Asdfg, zxcvb?
(flagged myself)
Intelligent Design is worth looking at. If one can try to remove the emotionalism out of the equation they can discover tha ID is not Creationism. Individuals of various contradicting religous backgrounds are proponents of ID as well as atheists, humanists, and gnostics.
Try to set aside your presuppositions and take the time to listen and learn and provide good solid arguements without all the emotion and maybe everybody can grow and learn together.
http://www.summathetes.blogspot.com/
Finally a movie worth seeing that reveals all is not well
We have been lied to
We have been cheated
would you like to go to court and not be able to defend yourself
that is what the supporters of evolutionary theory would like us to do
they would not like us to see opposing views and believe our ancestors were nothing more than pondscum struck by lightning....please their is more evidence to prove
intelligent design than their is that some accidental bolt of lightning made or caused a chemical reaction that came together to form life which grew then changed to someday become man
to walk the earth and destroy it.........
God gave us a mind -a free thinking mind let us use it,
let us view all the evidence how about piltdown man?
peking man?
cro magnon?
neanderthal man?
how many of these are actually real?
agentorangex
You say I can't talk about the Bible cus I don't know everything. Well, the same applies to you. You can't talk about evolution cus you don't know everything about it.
I made a mistake. My neighbor said the snake was a copperhead not a coral snake.
agentorangex said:"Next time, instead of killing it, just handle it"
Thats stupid agentorangex. That's tempting God. You are mocking God by your statements.
agentorangex you said:"How does one accidently pick up venomous snakes or accidently drink poison?"
The experience of the Apostle Paul is an example of accidently coming into contact with a venemous snake. It is in the Bible in Acts 28:3-6.
As far as consuming something poisonous:
Say I was witnessing to people about Jesus. Say I talked to somebody who hated Jesus. Say that person wanted to hurt me or kill me. If that person gave me something to eat or drink that they put poison in then if I eat it not knowing then God would protect me from being hurt. That is how you can accidently eat or drink something that has poison in it.
"Applies that logic to evolution and yous won't ever open your mouth."
Sorry, my expertise is in biology not the bible or theology, so in regards to evolution and biology and science in general I can and do open my mouth on them, b/c it's what I know and speak from.
“Yous never knows when one is under a log or something.”
Maybe don’t pick up the log or if you have to wear gloves….DUH.
‘My neighbor killed a coral snake the other day that came out from under somethin hes went to pick up”
Well, why didn’t he let it bite him or you then? It would be a great time to see how accurate the bible is in such regards to handling snakes now wouldn’t it? Next time, instead of killing it, just handle it and if it doesn’t bite you then it doesn’t, but if it does then well, it’s an accident so then just have faith and we’ll see.
“Sometimes you mights drink somethin withouts knowin it that is poisonious.”
You’re English is horrid, go back to school. Fine, then have you friend mix 11 cups with liquids, 1 of which is mercury, Drano, whatever and the rest are milk. Cover each of your eyes with blind folds and play Russian roulette with cups, enjoy. If you ingest the poison, then it’s an accident.
pattiepie,
How does one accidently pick up venomous snakes or accidently drink poison?
agentorangex you have been talkin to me ugly. You are a bad boy. I don't talk to you ugly.
Hey agentorange
You are right about my english. I'll try to do better. I like to please.
Hey agentorange
You says: Is your ego that shallow that you must openly proclaim to know something more than another before you have even reconciled all that which you don’t understand in the bible?
Thats a cop out. Applies that logic to evolution and yous won't ever open your mouth.
you says:
How exactly does one accidentally pick up a venomous snake or accidentally drink poisons? Such hypothetical’s aren’t even really possible as the person involved would have to either be 1) dumb enough to not know snake X is venomous (in which case, good riddance), or 2) that the strange, pungent smelling liquid they are about to ingest isn’t food, but poison and somehow they are again dumb enough to actually ingest it.
Do you lives around snakes? I do. Yous never knows when one is under a log or something. My neighbor killed a coral snake the other day that came out from under somethin hes went to pick up. Yous can get bit if not careful.
Sometimes you mights drink somethin withouts knowin it that is poisonious. God will protect you if yous is a livin for Him.
The Bible gives us an example of what Jesus meant by pickin up snakes and drinkin poison. But yous is to blinds to see it.
'I don'ts think you are a wantin to hear cus I thinks deep down you sometimes believe its true and yous don't want it to be true or maybe yous are afraid that it is true."
Ha, look at you tosser. the notion of evolution is the thing you don't want to hear, b/c, well, maybe deep down you find truth in it and consequently you can't have it be true as it would reek havoc for you. where did you learn English, did you graduate highschool? I am being dead serious b/c you're english could use some work.
pattiepie,
Look lady, I was picking a single instance of where virtually no one takes the bible literally, and for good reason, as anyone who would be killing themselves. If you want other instances of where the bible can’t be read literally, just ask, it’s full of them.
‘I understand the Bible betters than you.”
What is this grade school? Is your ego that shallow that you must openly proclaim to know something more than another before you have even reconciled all that which you don’t understand in the bible? What’s that saying about removing the splinter from your eye…
‘To picks up snakes and drink poison with intent is tempting God. That's wrong to tempt God. That's in the Bible”
It’s referring to doing such acts as a way of conveying ones faith in god. If one truly has faith and truly believes, then they have nothing to worry about.
“What's Jesus was saying was that if yous accidently picks up a snake or drinks poison then it won'ts hurt you”
How exactly does one accidentally pick up a venomous snake or accidentally drink poisons? Such hypothetical’s aren’t even really possible as the person involved would have to either be 1) dumb enough to not know snake X is venomous (in which case, good riddance), or 2) that the strange, pungent smelling liquid they are about to ingest isn’t food, but poison and somehow they are again dumb enough to actually ingest it.
agentorangex, I don'ts think you are a wantin to hear cus I thinks deep down you sometimes believe its true and yous don't want it to be true or maybe yous are afraid that it is true. God will help you.
agentorangex, your understanding of what someone is a tryin to say is almost ZERO!
pattiepie,
“The same kinds of miracles are for believers today.”
Right, this implies that if you have enough faith or are a believer that drinking poison and handling venomous snakes can’t harm you. So get with the program and start drinking Liquid Drano and let us know how it pans out ok?
Now agentorangex if yous had read what was written better yous would have seen that the explanation came from star2.
I bets you don't read nothin much about what a Christian says. Yous pick up a few words and thats it. That's why yous make such stupid statements. Yous makes yourself looks foolish.
I understand the Bible betters than you.
To picks up snakes and drink poison with intent is tempting God. That's wrong to tempt God. That's in the Bible. What's Jesus was saying was that if yous accidently picks up a snake or drinks poison then it won'ts hurt you. But this applies to Christians who are a livin for God and has faiths in whats He says. The Apostle Paul was an example of what Jesus was a talkin about (Acts 28:1 -10) in regard to snakes and healings.
pattiepie,
‘You did bad to call me a moron.’
No I didn’t, I said the people who drink poison and handle venomous snakes are morons. if you do that too, then yes you'd be a moron in my book.
‘You don'ts understand the Bible”
And just earlier you admitted to not understanding it all either, nice logic lady. By all means, you or star can try to spin this one drinking poison and serpent bit, be my guest I’d love to see ya try.
“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.”
That would explain why you talk like Jar Jar Binks. ‘Yousa!’
“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.”
Right, instead they yammer endlessly and incoherently in tongues, rattle about and bounce around like little wind up dolls. I guess to you that isn’t something ‘foolish’ then? How exactly does yammering incoherently in tongues and bouncing around like a kid with turrets syndrome bring one closer to the lord or exemplify ‘faith’ exactly?
Hey agentorangex
cont
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.
Hey agentorangex
You did bad to call me a moron.
Now star2 gave a good answer to ifeelfine72 about the snakes. I am a goin to post star2's write up. You don'ts understand the Bible. That's for sure. star2 don't mind. star2 is nice.
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.
pattiepie,
Since you take God for his word, and without a second thought of your won, perhaps you should quit talking the talk and start walking the walk.
Go handle venomous snakes and drink poison like the bible asks you to do in the NT in a way of demonstrating your faith, then we’ll see what’s up. Is it any wonder laws in Kentucky have been passed which makes it illegal to handle venomous snakes? Morons. Time to USE that big ol brain for a change.
Pattiepie,
“Evolution says you cames from an ape.”
Well, more accurately it says we share a common ancestor with extant Great Apes and for that matter that all life on earth, including us, is related via extended common ancestry.
“Your great grandma and grandpa the ape don't wear clothes ……If thats so then why do you wear clothes?”
My great grandma and grandpa weren’t’ great apes, they were human, the shared common ancestry is much, much further back in time. Total non sequitur , we wear clothes for many reasons, non of which has to do with sharing ancestry with extant apes though. A baby can’t know of anything b/c its just been born so it can’t be expected to know shame or embarrassment for being naked in the first place.
Hey steveh20
I takes God at His Word. Do I understands it all? No. Somethings I understand somethings I don't.
Hey agentorangex
you says:So why can't evolution work as part of gods plan then?
Cus thats not the ways God is. God speaks and its done. That's in the Bible. God always has a big part in what goes on in life. That is His nature. If evolution was true and it was God plan then God wouldn't play a role in life. Read the Bible and yous will see that God has His hand in the affairs of man.
Evolution says you cames from an ape. If thats so then why do you wear clothes? Your great grandma and grandpa the ape don't wear clothes. Theys not embrassed likes you would be with out clothes.
Adam and Eve becames embrassed when they sinned cus they had no clothes on. Theys knew they had a problem. Theys didn't go to God for help even though they talked to God every evening. They tried to figure a solution without God. That's what sinners do. Sinners say 'no' to God and don't look to Him for help.
Buts God cared for them anyway. He came like He always did in the evening. God made them admit they sinned and then He helped them out by making clothes for them that would last.
Its the same way now. Whens you a baby yous don't know you is naked. You don'ts know that you sin. But when yous get older then things are a different. When yous start knowing yous a bad boy or girl then you don't wants mommy to see you naked anymore.
You ask: "have you seen 'Expelled'? and if so, what have you learned regarding it?"
No I haves not.
.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.
I think that those who like to claim, I trust/ believe...God's word etc..would be much more honest if they where to insert "my interpretation of" in that sentance.
Regards
Steve
pattiepie,
So why can't evolution work as part of gods plan then? have you seen 'Expelled'? and if so, what have you learned regarding it?
Hey agentorangex
I don'ts know how to reconcile Gen 1 and Gen 2. But there's an answer for sure. I bets you it has a somethin to do with how wes view the 6 days. Only God knows, that's the truth.
Hey Jerry1
star2 says: "You say that Christians don't have any original ideas. Okay, so I guess since you are not a Christian then you do. So, what are your original ideas?"
Hows come you won't answer star2's question? Are yous a coward?
Hey steveh20
I don'ts care what others think. I haves my opinion. Now I don'ts know a whole lot but I tries to understand better each day. What God says is true nothin else matters.
Woops!!
One of the things I find interesting about debates on ths site is that some write as if their view concerning evolution etc. was the only Christian view ie evolution is not true. Fair enough your allowed your point of view ( which as happen I believe is wrong). I can't let it pass though that many Christians would disagree wth you and that it is wrong to write as if your version of Christian belief was the only one. A good understanding of Church history especally the last 200 years would clearly show it was not. My Chrisitian friends who have looked at this site are quite embarrased by it.
Regards
Steve
pattiepie,
“Because God says He didn't do it that a way.”
You mean the bible says he did it that way, it’s called ‘inspired by god’ not written by god. By your logic of taking the bible as per its word, then we should also think that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun rotates arouns it, but it doesn't.
By the way, which creation account are we to take literally, genesis 1 or genesis 2? The 2 are not transparently the same, they are different authored accounts.
One of the things
Hey agentorangex
You asked : "... why can’t in your view, God use an elegant system of processes like Evolution to bring about the diversity of life we see?"
Because God says He didn't do it that a way. Now He is either tellin the truth or He is lying.
'There are no intelligent Christians. "
Are Ken Miller and Kevin Padian and the most of people in science not intellegent now jerry? Like I said, there is a disctinction between YEC and Christian.
Jerry1,
dude, cut it out already.
Hi Pattiepie,
So I am interested in your view still, why can’t in your view, God use an elegant system of processes like Evolution to bring about the diversity of life we see?
Which is more devine: 1) a creator *poofing* things into existance or 2) a creator devising natural, fundimental laws which dictate how matter can work and allows for life to diversify by itself while he sits back and watches it build itself?
Jerry1
You say that Christians don't have any original ideas. Okay, so I guess since you are not a Christian then you do. So, what are your original ideas?
Now Jerry1 it sounds likes to me that yous is a very angry person and yous have a mental illness problem. Yous need help from our Creator the Lord Jesus Christ. May God bless you with tolerance and accpetance of others with different ideas than you.
not a professor of anything,
"137 PEOPLE NOW ABANDONING THEIR ATHEISM after seeing the movie Expelled!!! "
and you go this stat from WHERE again?
Slacker,
“I have no use for science that can't help me get thru lifes tough problems...”
Really? Hmmmmmm, ok, I guess you'd prefer to live in the Dark Ages then? Good, next time you or a family member is fatally injured, suffer a stroke, heart attack, come down with cancer, etc. don’t bother with seeing any doctors, using medicine or physical therapy, just live with it tuff guy. You’ll essentially have 3rd world level care, good luck.
”How is science going to help me keep my Job? It isn't...”
It might not help you, it depends on what exactly you do for your job. Lets say you’re a farmer though, farming has seen huge per acre yield increases over the decades and centuries, thanks directly from science. One would be foolish to want to go back to the days before modern farming machinery, pesticides and herbicides, as this would impact food yields and result in more famines or at the least food shortages. Most of our jobs today are no doubt originated from science and thus our very livelihoods are predicated off of such knowledge, research and science. Don't believe me? Go ask the african tribes man how he makes a living and similar folk and you'll see their lives are mostly agricultural based.
”How is science going to help me put food on the table? It isn't...’
It depends how you look at it. Earlier you were crying about you having to drive long distances to work and thus it costs a lot for you. Well, thanks to science newer more fuel-efficient cars are available, as are new types of fuels and cars which can use them are being tested and researched. Imagine if you could drive to work now, but it cost 1/50 of what it costs now. This would no doubt impact how much, if it all you could put food on the table for your family. Try to think a little more out side the box.
”How is science going to prevent death and destruction thru out the world? It isn't...”
Yup, all those methods of preventive care like medicine mean nothing to you apparently. If want to see how science has prevented untimely death, review the deaths from certain diseases back in the 1900’s with today and compare the infant mortality rate from then to today. Compare the increase in average life expectancy for people living in the western industrialized world and compare the stats with the early 1900 and 1800’s. Want more?
’So ask youself how much better off are we now that we have this new scientific Age?”
You must be a high school drop out. If you don’t like this type of lifestyle with science, go live in some Amazonian jungle, or war torn Africa, or any similar place which is utterly void of science. Then we’ll see how much you trumpet your horn. I find it quite ironic how easily you (try to) bash science and at this very moment you’re using things (Internet, computer, electricity to name a few) to conduct your ill form.
Tarzan,
“..." maybe microevolution to an extent, but not macroevolution have they?”
Macro-evolution is evolution at or above the species level barrier. So the question is, has speciation events been observed in labs and in the wild? The answer is yes they have. Google ‘observed instances of speciation’.
“... i notice you didnt say evolution has all the evidence [still no pig with wings fossils ay”
Well no, evolutionary doesn’t have all the evidence, yet. The evidence continually comes in, is tested and determined if it fits within the mode of evolutionary theory. If you want some recent evidence for it, look into genetics.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
“btw, i said "and human conscientiousness, where did it come from"”
Ultimately the source of our consciousness from our brains, where exactly in the brain isn’t known, but it’s the brain none the less. You’re asking the question as if you expect some pixies or fairies to be responsible for delivering consciousness.
“, just like not allowing the questioning and challenging of evolution gaps is irresponsible.”
Such as…..?
137 PEOPLE NOW ABANDONING THEIR ATHEISM after seeing the movie Expelled!!! Keep those numbers coming. Just contact us about your experience at...
http://jesus-revolution.com/contact.htm
and visit
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com/
Thank you for your reply, star. God bless you and keep you always, my brother
aritonang
CP is beginning to restore many of the flagged posts. They are not done yet. Some have been deleted while others have not. Don't understand why. CP obviously hasn't finished yet restoring what they choose to restore.
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.
I have no use for science that can't help me get thru lifes tough problems...
How is science going to help me keep my Job? It isn't...
How is science going to help me put food on the table? It isn't...
How is science going to prevent death and destruction thru out the world? It isn't...
So ask youself how much better off are we now that we have this new scientific Age? We arn't better for it, there is a higher rate of murder, suicide, rape, robbery and such in this new "scientific age". So personally I have no use for science that hasn't done anything for the good of mankind.... Good Luck to you...
Hey Jerry1
Yous said on anothers article "Will I get Bored in Heaven":"The problem with Christians is they never think. They never have an original idea. Their lives are just blind obedience to their religious brainwashing, never questioning anything no matter how insane it is."
What original ideas do you have?
Hey Jerry1
Yous sound a kind of angry tonight. What's wrong?
Jerry, I guess that must mean that you are right about everything and an uneducated religious person (at least by your standards) is going to the concentration camp for religious extremists.
I’m glad that God is no respecter of persons.
Cevink, you Neo-Darwinists tend to use the same fallacious arguments in regards to the number of evolutionists in the hard sciences, without recognizing that there may very well be personality types that tend to gravitate in that direction in the first place. Not to mention the very examples set forth in this documentary that reveal the various pressures to submit to the scientific community. Of course there is also the aspect that it would be Christians who would likely be more interested in the softer sciences involving more humanistic careers such as child development, psychology, etc.
(flagged myself for correction)
Tarzan,
If you want to get a good look at the issues you might consider picking up the book, The Evolution Controversy: A Survey of Competing Theories by Thomas B. Fowler and Daniel Kuebler. Both of these guys lean toward evolution. They do not however give it a pass on good measure.
ifeelfine72, you said "biologists can prove that it did in labs, through experiments..." maybe microevolution to an extent, but not macroevolution have they?
I’m sure that ifeelfine would want to answer for himself, but the answer is no. They have beaks changing sizes and lengths and a few other miscellaneous examples, but nothing that incontrovertibly proves macroevolution. There are three aspects of Neo-Darwinism to familiarize yourself with, if you haven’t already: common decent, natural selection and random genetic mutations. Agent has been debating here on CP for a while now in regards to common decent. Michael Behe is an advocate of Intelligent Design who actually agrees with common decent. He along with William Dembski have hammered out a scientific approach towards design, costing Neo-Darwinists a big headache. In short, what is happened is scientists are questioning the efficacy of natural selection and random genetic mutations to be capable of giving rise to all the various species in the history of life on earth. Meta-Darwinists recognize some of these problems and have tried to give natural explanations, careful not to give credence to I.D. and creation proponents.
Many apologists such as Dr William Lane Craig simply skip the evolution controversy and jump straight into the cosmological argument and the teleological argument.
cevink u said "microevolution is proof of macroevolution to a certain degree" .... you're stretching it a little there but saved yourself at the end...
"there is very little difference between humans and our closest relatives (99% similarity with chimpanzees, 97% with mice [the exact numbers vary according to the source])....do you think that is coincidental? Or maybe that is because we all evolved from a common ancestor."
...maybe your closest relative, not mine bubba... not coincidence, it was by design
mary\'schild
Who might this Divine Love be?
Anyone can perceive that intelligent design is reality. In fact, evolution itself is part of the design. The complexity and efficiency with which all creation works, and all the things that creatures do and are capable of is no happy accident. The truth is, all have been designed and created by Divine Love, with Divine Love, for Divine Love, who gave the intelligence to figure it out, the heart to respond to it, and the free will to choose to be in or out. Praise God!!!
Tarzan,
You are making so many fallacious arguments that it is hard to keep up, but your siting of US National polls is irrelevant. That is called "argumentum ad populum" or "an appeal to the bandwagon". It makes no difference how many people believe/do not believe in something....truth is truth and is not subject to a vote. We can prove our truth and *have* in the lab...microevolution is proof of macroevolution to a certain degree, and while we have not *seen* macroevolution because it happens over hundreds to thousands of years.
Here is *irrefutable* proof: genetic similarity. Modern genetics has shown that there is very little difference between humans and our closest relatives (99% similarity with chimpanzees, 97% with mice [the exact numbers vary according to the source])....do you think that is coincidental? Or maybe that is because we all evolved from a common ancestor. What about cats? Anyone can look at a housecat and see a resemblance to a jaguar, ocelot, lion, or tiger...if you examine the genes, the proof becomes clear.
ifeelfine72, you said "biologists can prove that it did in labs, through experiments..." maybe microevolution to an extent, but not macroevolution have they?
agentorangex, you said "what makes you think ID is scientific or has the level of evidence for it that evolution has?" ... i notice you didnt say evolution has all the evidence [still no pig with wings fossils ay] ... not teaching bombing of pearl harbor would be irresponsible, just like not allowing the questioning and challenging of evolution gaps is irresponsible.
btw, i said "and human conscientiousness, where did it come from" ... i didnt ask where is it located, maybe your eyes are weak not the question
tarzan,
The guy opens his discussion by admitting to be essentially a laymen with regards to evolution and creation, why should we consider his opinon forward with such an admission? He seems like he's on fence rather than advocating either way though.
"this is true, but if dealing with allowing ID into USA public schools, than the USA public majority should be allowed to voice how their tax dollars are utilized in allowing ID."
and what makes you think ID is scientific or has the level of evidence for it that evolution has? How is ID even falsifiable? Shouldn't we teach what the facts and evidence support rather than what we'd like or wish to teach simply for theological or other reasons. I'd like to teach that we didn't nuke the Japs in WW2 b/c its something that is hard to live down, nevertheless it occured and to ignore it would be iresponsible.
"well, that explains it .. doh"
Well, maybe you asked a weak question. you asked for WHERE and the brain is such a location. you didn't ask 'why or how consciousness exists' those are different questions with different answers.
Tarzan: Thanks for the moderate tone but what you're missing is that it doesn't matter if people believe evolution happened or not, biologists can prove that it did in labs, through experiments, through observation, etc. I don't know if I read this here or on Pharyngula but in order not to believe in evolution, you have to all of a sudden not believe in lots of other sciences as well - cosmology, geology, even astronomy. Sciences are linked together a lot more than you think.
AgentOrange - Thanks for the kind words; I know you're not a Christian but please don't think all of us that are have abandoned reason.
"Meanwhile every other industrialized western country, as a % of their countries population, accepts it more than we do." ... this is true, but if dealing with allowing ID into USA public schools, than the USA public majority should be allowed to voice how their tax dollars are utilized in allowing ID.
"I know, all those hominid fossils just don’t make sense, nor does the genetic evidence either, but they easy to dismiss if you ignore them." ... i still haven't seen the pig with wings.
"Da Brain." ... well, that explains it .. doh
"Indeed the origins of life are no doubt more intriguing, however the origins isn’t what evolution describes in the first place. " ... agreed and agreed, that is abiogenesis
agentorange
Re:star2, how did you know it was a revelation and not something else? I am willing to listen b/c I am interested in what to look for.
You will just know that what is said about God is true in your mind and in your heart.
“all the USA Today and other famous national polls show a majority of Americans do not believe in evolution”
Meanwhile every other industrialized western country, as a % of their countries population, accepts it more than we do.
“i dont think its because were not smart enough to understand the intricacies of it all, but because the human body is just too complex to believe it evolved”
I know, all those hominid fossils just don’t make sense, nor does the genetic evidence either, but they easy to dismiss if you ignore them. Speaking of humans being evolved, our design is less than optimal if you haven’t noticed. Wisdom teeth? Not good design. The human eye is wired backwards creating a blind spot that the brain has to composite for and flips the image, whereas the Octopus’ is better designed internally where the brain doesn’t have to perform this flipping. How the testicles have to descend during puberty sometimes causing hernias? Not good design again. Its even more interesting once one examines it at the genetic level, but you get the idea.
“and human conscientiousness, where did it come from”
Da Brain.
“that what should be more intriguing is the ORIGIN of life”
My emphasis added. Indeed the origins of life are no doubt more intriguing, however the origins isn’t what evolution describes in the first place.
star2, how did you know it was a revelation and not something else? I am willing to listen b/c I am interested in what to look for.
agentorange
Only God can reveal to you who He is. I can say that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Ghost is the true and living God because He has revealed Himself to me. I cannot give to you my revelation. God will give that revelation to you Himself. I can talk about what He has done in my life but I cannot impart that to you. Only God can open your ears to hear.
One day God will open your ears to hear. Praise God. Thank you Jesus. Amen!
although I dont agree with jerry1 and agentorangex, i dont think those who oppose them should flag them, i think thats rather bad sportsmanship.
pro-evolutionists are not going to convince us no matter how technical they explain it... Americans still poll a majority do not believe in evolution, all the USA Today and other famous national polls show a majority of Americans do not believe in evolution... i dont think its because were not smart enough to understand the intricacies of it all, but because the human body is just too complex to believe it evolved... and human conscientiousness, where did it come from...
i read this on James M Tour website, one of the scientists who initially signed the ID petition back in 2001, that what should be more intriguing is the origin of life... interesting points:
"Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me. Lunch will be my treat. Until then, I will maintain that no chemist understands, hence we are collectively bewildered. And I have not even addressed origin of first life issues. For me, that is even more scientifically mysterious than evolution. Darwin never addressed origin of life, and I can see why he did not—he was far too smart for that."
http://www.jmtour.com/?page_id=27
flagged again...
"Evolution - no God. Creationists - there is a God."
evolution in no way negates the need for a god, intiial creator or what have you. it's a false dichotomy to think the 2 are mutually exclusive, as apparent how most people who accept evolution are, religious, others being destic or agnostic or atheistic. So the corelation you attempt is a false one.
"What ifs there is a God? What ifs theres a Heaven and a Hell?"
IF there is, then there is. Nothing changes espistomolgoical truth despite our ignorance of it/them, but the facts of science, namely gravity and other theories also exist as epistomolgical truths in some slight degree and as well regardless if we understand or not and know of them they exist in externally of our knowledge. gravity as a function/process of this universe exists, regardless of our ackowleding of it.
"http://spiritlessons.com/Documents/7_Jovenes/English_7_Jovenes_Hell.htm"
You point me to a site, which points directly back and referers to scripture.....BIG suprise there.
"Revelations of Heaven - Testimonies of 7 Columbian Youth"
I have nothing against Columbians, nor the youth, but the personal opinon is highly subjective, and not formed from objective testing and thus is of little veracity in the matter. This why in court personal witness testimonies generally never outweigh physical testable (DNA, gun marks, etc.) evidence in light of a crime. you can tell the court that your brother wasn't the murder of person X, but if the overwhelming physical shows otherswise, it's easier to see the witness testimony is hollow if not fraudulent.
agentorange
I didn't flag you. I have no reason to.
Hey agentorangex
Yous said:"so, deos evolution mean 'no god' in your view? I am curious."
It makes me feel better that yous is curious about what I thinks.
There is all kinds of gods peoples believe in. There is only one true God. Wes call Him God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. All the others gods are no god at all, they are false.
The trues God created everything, just likes He says in the Bible. God spokes everything into existence. And nothin started out as a baby. Theys all started out in its grownup state.
Evolution says that everythin started out as a baby and then grew up. This is false. If yous thinks it happened by chance thens that means you beleives no god. If yous believe god started it off and then left then yous believes in a god but its not the God of the Bible. The god of evolution is false.
Somes thinks that the god of evolution is the God of the Bible. Theys is wrong.
I don'ts sees how a Christian cans believe in evolution and say theys believe in the God of the Bible. The evolution Christian is a callin the God of the Bible a liar. Shame on that Christian. The god of evolution does not go with the God of the Bible. Theys is opposite in a how theys do things.
GMG
How am I applauding anyone? I praise the facts, not people. Besides with the rampant censoring employed by people here is it any wonder some like ifeelfine72 don't find sanctuary in disingenuous acts and would rather support the facts regardless of whom the proponents are? I mean could you blame him. How many times have my points and others, which are not overriding nor are they inflammatory been routinely censored and many of which Ifeelfine72 has time and again pointed out their veracity?
It's evident the amount of censorship that is employed here, cheifly directed at those who are not using hate speech, but rather just to shut them up as to avoid facing facts or in sake of having to actually learn something. Oh no, imagine that! The arguments on CP generally goes like this..... person A commits to a statement A1, person B rebukes statement A1 with contrary evidence, generally cited and person A tries one of the following: 1) throws in a strawman argument (ie, mixing up biology with cosmology) and or using a non sequitor statement. 2) Cites holy verses, or cherry picks and quotes out of context from particular peoples, ie Darwin and the evolution of the Eye. 3) Person A censors persons B comments so as to avoid having to face the facts and the realization that indeed their points were vacuous. So the world turns....
This is exemplified by how when one reviews just the related articles on 'Expelled' ('Expelled' Set to Release Amid Wave of Attacks, How to Share Your Faith Using Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Expelled was Excellent etc.)one finds proponents from my side generally being the ones being censored, and for no other reason than to avoid the facts. No matter I can always repost them.
This would be your club so to speak that you're a member of. Just thought you'd like to know what company you are keeping.
"agentorangex - you is a goin to hell if yous don't repent. "
Is this all you have to offer is fear mongeing Pattie? do you even understand the meaning of 'fear mongering' ?
Thanks for censoring me earlier on this blog, whoever it was....*wink* Star *wink* I'll just repost it.
"One day you will get your witness of God, judgment, heaven, and hell. "
Thanks for the fear mongering star, but I am not 10, you'll have to try harder than that.
agentorangex - you is a goin to hell if yous don't repent.
Hey agentorangex
star2 said: "witness of God"
That 'witness' is a called revelation. That is when God shows yous the truth about sin, Jesus, goin to hell, salvation from sin, and goin to heaven.
pattiepie,
ya, I guess you could infer that, though you hardly know me like Star, Seedplanter, Ifeelfine72, and cistgona do. so, deos evolution mean 'no god' in your view? I am curious.
Yous is a bad boy agentorangex in your attitudes and speech.
star2,
"One day you will get your witness of God, judgment, heaven, and hell."
What....more fear mongering....I am not 10 star, you'll have to use something else besides the notions of fear and damnation for evidence. Using fear is the ultimate copout for a proposition. Could you ever imagine a scientist saying to 'accept gravity works this way, or you'll going to hell'? Put it into perspective star.
So, the Expelled movie came out, I am waiting to here how much ya'all loved it and how educational it tried to be.
GMG,
" But you will remember when this all started"
And still I and steve and ifeelfine get flagged? what is this the guilt by association committe here? I don't see the corelation between 'woot' and georgex' being the same character as first/danny, and most of this is by the difference in word usuage and lacking of personal attacks or on peoples god. It's one thing to cite how ones disgust is for a particular god (danny) and quite another to address evolutionary evidence and then to be censored regardless makes me wonder where the whole message of forgiving ever went. Assuming george = danny, and
this person doesn't personally attack persons or their gods by inflamitory speech and sticks to methodical evidence, what exactly is the problem?
Jerry1, from my view is new and thus far from what I've seen hasn't involved personal attacks...but it's not easy to know when cenoship rules around here. Censorship here is seemingly based more on vendettas or an unwillingness to allow others to speak their mind, and not from hate speech.
"Most often, it is being done around discussions involving evolution.'
yup, as soon as I or others trump an argument of around here, backed with evidence and citations/references to boot it tends to be immediately flagged. I have been accused of flagging others, but the sheer logic of this is obviously wrong. Why would why post long examples for evidence of evolution in response to others only to censor them? I would prefer to ahve people provide the rope to hang themselves and that is quite hard to do if I were to censor them. additionally it makes it pointless as nothing is gained as know knowledge is revealed.
agentorange
One day you will get your witness of God, judgment, heaven, and hell. I sure hope it won't be to late for you to make a decision for Jesus Christ. If it is not, then I hope you'll swallow your pride and receive Him as Savior and Lord.
Beginning with the tower of Babel men have been attempting to "See" God by man-made meaqns and contraptions. Unfortunately, with Adam's expulsion from Eden, man lost the ability to "SEE" God. A flaming-sword-bearing angel was left to guard the entrance to Eden, suggesting that seeing God again was out of the question and meant death. From that point forward man must see God through eyes of faith. That means we can "see" Him only through the Word of God, miraculous events, and the testimony of others. Those who are looking for answers either through atomic telescopes or astrologers or tarot card readers or any other means except the Word of God will ultimately be disappointed with what they find. "If you seek Me with all your HEART, you shall surely find Me." God IS and He wants to have a personal , eternal relationship with you through His Son, Jesus Christ. Stop looking for some other god for your fulfillment. Only the Lord God can satisfy your eternal needs.
Hey agentorangex and Jerry1
Evolution - no God. Creationists - there is a God.
What ifs there is a God? What ifs theres a Heaven and a Hell?
Want to know? Got guts? Checks this out:
Revelations of Hell - Testimonies of 7 Columbian Youth
http://spiritlessons.com/Documents/7_Jovenes/English_7_Jovenes_Hell.htm
Revelations of Heaven - Testimonies of 7 Columbian Youth
http://spiritlessons.com/Documents/7_Jovenes/English_7_Jovenes_Heaven.htm
agentorange
I've seen those articles with all the flagging. People from both sides are being flagged (just off the top of my head, I remember seeing flagging of aritonang, star2, hawk49 as well). It's like a couple of little kids, each from different camps, are throwing rocks at each other. Most often, it is being done around discussions involving evolution. But you will remember when this all started.....with first/danny/.....BobC (who is now Jerry1/Georgex/woot). Guess someone got sick of all his little games and decided to get even. It's all very childish.
ifeelfine and agentorange,
You may not realize this, but in your fervor to all join in a nice warm fuzzy evolutionist club, you are applauding Jerry1/GeorgeX...../first/danny/......BobC. Just thought you'd like to know what company you are keeping.
Jerry1
>>>>>JC: "I don't need to study this."
That says it all. You are proud of your willful ignorance. <<<<<
I believe this is what YOU call quote mining. Read the REST of what he says. Shame, shame, whatever happened to your moral compass? Oh, wait, that's right. I forgot. There are two sets of rules...one for you, and one for the rest of humanity (read that as "people who don't agree with you, specifically Christians").
Have a nice day!
"When you make God look like a God of the gaps you insult God."
Bravo, I don't think it could be said any better. Somehow, I think those who espose the god of the gaps arguement don't see how its a geniune diservice to the notion of God, why it's thelogically disasitfying and leads, unfortunatlely, to some to think that god can't exist as he would have to exist in some small realms/gaps of ignorance.
Spot on Jerry1!
"one can simply and verifiably say that it did indeed begin with a rock. But this is where most Evolutionists stop"
actually no, the theory of evolution encomposses life changing over time and rocks aren't replicating molecules, so even at the lowest denominator, saying evolution suggests life came from rocks is wrong, as evolution doesn't described the formation of life, but rather the diversity of life, aka the origins of species and not the origins of life.
also, I finid it kinda funny how you can accept your holly book literally saying man was made from (drum roll) DIRT and Eve from man's dirty rib, but you find the idea of a rock somehow less tenable or acceptable? Jc, I thought you were the big speaker on logic here?
"For those that don't know, an AU is the distance between the Sun and the Earth...Even with the Hubble telescope, we can only see about 35 - 50 AU away"
Distance fromo SOL (sun) to Earth - 93 million miles (average) X 50 = 4,650,000,000 miles.
JC, you're saying we can ONLY see some 4.65 billion miles, but apparenlty with Hubble we can much, much further, you lose again. and what exactly does cosmology have to do with biology again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field
Riiihgt, what nonsense again. That's why with the hubble and sptizer telescopes and others we can see into the 'utlra deep field' and see the universe many billions of lightyears away right?
" it is now time. Instead of a kiss, now it's "millions and millions" of years. Same story, different twist."
More like billions of years.
"'Expelled' Explodes into Top 10 Box Office"
Wow, BOOM an explosion! Alexander J. Sheffrin ar you kidding us, this film didn't explode anywhere, it limped into the 8th overall spot nationally, that's not very impressive. More like it barely made the top 10.
"These principles were imbibed wholeheartedly by German scientists and philosophers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries"
Riiight, it's all from evolutionary theory right? What nonsense. That's why the belt buckels the Nazi's wore read 'got mit uns' translation, 'god is with us'.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/buckle.jpeg
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/expelled-the-fi.html
To Jerry1:
I said: "They tell us that we evolved from a rock instead."
You said: "Nope. The first tiny cells formed from organic matter, which was probably plentiful when our planet was young, perhaps thanks to a very large number of comets that smashed into the ancient earth."
Here we go with the Oort Cloud again. This is a fallback when scientific fact meets Evolution. The Oort Cloud is said to lie around 50000 AU (astronomical units) away from Solar System. For those that don't know, an AU is the distance between the Sun and the Earth. Even with the Hubble telescope, we can only see about 35 - 50 AU away. This sounds like a grand fairy tale that scientists fall back on when other evidence is given to them. They can't prove the Oort cloud exists, but they shift the burden of proof and challenge us to prove it doesn't exist.
But back to the Earth. What was before the primordial ooze? And before that? And before that? And before that?
Beloved, if you follow the logic of Evolution, which seldom is done by Evolutionists, one can simply and verifiably say that it did indeed begin with a rock. But this is where most Evolutionists stop. For they are unable to answer the final question, where did the rock come from?
Evolution is nothing more than a spin on a very old tale. Instead of it taking a kiss to change the frog into a prince, they changed the story a bit. Instead of a princess, it is now time. Instead of a kiss, now it's "millions and millions" of years. Same story, different twist. Still false.
Darwin and Hitler: A Trumped-Up Connection? 04/16/2008
April 16, 2008 — If there is anything critics of Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled are griping about, it is the association of Hitler with Darwin. What is the movie claiming and not claiming, and how solid is the historical connection?
Scientific American, in particular, loathed the implication that Darwinism has anything to do with the Holocaust (but see rebuttal on Evolution News). The American Thinker was a little sympathetic, but still asked whether the imagery of Dachau and Hademar “begs [the] question of the ontological connection between Darwinism and Nazism”
In response, historian Richard Weikart, PhD at UC Stanislaus, wrote an article for the The American Spectator to clarify the relationship between “Darwin and the Nazis.” He acknowledges that today’s Darwinists are not Nazis—far from it. Nevertheless, he listed six principles embedded in Darwin’s world view that cheapen the value of human life:
Humans are animals.
There is no soul.
Morality is relative.
Humans are unequal.
Nature is a struggle for existence.
Death is an engine of progress.
These principles were imbibed wholeheartedly by German scientists and philosophers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They, in turn, strongly influenced Hitler. In addition, Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler, showed how today’s staunch Darwinists believe the same principles. “Today’s Darwinists are not Nazis and not all Darwinists agree with Dawkins, Wilson, Ruse, Singer, or Watson,” he ended. “However, some of the ideas being promoted today by prominent Darwinists in the name of Darwinism have an eerily similar ring to the ideologies that eroded respect for human life in the pre-Nazi era.”
Dennis Prager interviewed Ben Stein on his radio program Tuesday. In the interview, which can be heard on DennisPrager.com (34 minutes), Prager made a similar point. He stated emphatically that neither he, Ben Stein, nor the film are claiming that Darwinists are Nazi sympathizers or that Darwinism produced the Holocaust. The point made by Expelled was that the Darwinian world view facilitated the devaluation of human life – and that Nazis pointed to Darwinism as a scientific justification for their views. That, Prager said, is a fact of history acknowledged by all historians.
A great deal of misinformation about this film has been circulating. Chuck Colson addressed some of these myths on BreakPoint. His commentary has links for additional information. Expelled the Movie also has blogs, news, downloads, and many other features. Some others who have addressed the Darwin-Nazi issue on Evolution News & Views include Robert Crowther and David Klinghoffer #1 and #2.
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200804.htm
Refute ignorance, not censor it.
The problem is finding that which is ignorant.
The reality is that it is the same evidence but interpreted through a particular viewpoint.
On one hand, it is the supernatural power of God.
On the other, it is a yet to be found natural force that causes animals to evolve to the point where they are no longer resemble like their ancestors.
But one thing is a little telling, it is only one species that is having this debate - man - not monkeys nor whales nor dogs nor cats nor even our closest 'relative', whom man is quantum leaps ahead in intelligence and creativity and productivity and adaptability.
hmm- made in the image of God.
The outrage expressed by the atheistic community at Ben Stein movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed has been so palpable you could bottle it up and sell it as an energy drink. They are practically foaming at the mouth.
Nice to know that, thank you very much
The blogosphere reveals the utter disdain that the hard core atheists have for anyone who merely suggests that it might be possible to scientifically detect design. If all Stein movie accomplishes is revealing more publicly what many in the scientific community have been saying quietly all along, that is a major accomplishment.
And we congratulate Mr. Stein on this Expelled success
Once again Darwin's book was the origin of species NOT the origin of life. In regards to the movie Ben Stein took notes from Micheal Moore and learned there is money to made by preaching to the choir in the movie theater venue.
"Expelled...made history this weekend...the film debuted at No. 9 at the box office, earning a respectable $3.2 million while only appearing on 1,052 screens."
Made history? Fahrenheit 9/11 made $23.9 million in its opening weekend and only played in 868 theaters. The Expelled producers said they'd consider the film a success if they made 10–12 million in their opening weekend. They made 3.2. The film is a failure. Spin that story, Sheffrin.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure DNA evolved later. The first life had to be pretty darn simple. I hope you try that UK website. I visit there often and would be pleased to see your question there.
"Can you explain to me how those first cells came about?"
No. I sure can't do that. Heck, it's obvious you know more about it than I do.
I highly recommend this place: http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/
Ask any question. It goes into a queue and soon one or more biologists answers it for everyone to read. They would be glad to answer your question the best they can. If they don't know or if they are not sure, they will tell you that.
Jerry1,
You said "The first tiny cells formed from organic matter."
Can you explain to me how those first cells came about? I prefer if you start with how the first nucleotides were formed and how they came into the first strand of DNA and how somehow this DNA was read by a protein (even though DNA makes proteins) and it just so happened this randomly generated DNA made some other protein that had a purpose it already knew. It's an honest question because it's always boggled my mind.
To Jerry1:
I don't need to study this, I had enough indoctrination in public schools. Thanks though.
Let me ask you a question Jerry1: Can scientists definitively tell us the origins of this planet?
Answer, of course not. Now, since scientists cannot tell us the origins of this planet with any clarity, how could they possibly explain the origins of life on this planet?
So, by all truth, whether Intelligent Design or Evolution, scientists are only working with half a picture. The strange part is, they aren't even searching for the missing half. They've become content with the half they do have knowledge of.
They present their theories as fact while suppressing other truths. They tell us that we evolved from a rock instead. And this is science?
To Jerry1:
Since you brought up DNA sequencing and evolution, can you explain to me the existence of a bottleneck in the DNA "evolution"? When scientists followed the DNA sequence back through time, they found a strange bottleneck. This bottleneck shows a considerable event that wipes out every individual on the face of this planet, save just a few. I've heard every explanation from dinosaurs to killer-volcanoes. Curiously though, these individuals were reduced to just eight.
Care to guess their names?
RedRyder: I sort of understand where you are coming from but Jerry1 is right, evolution is tested in labs and has been observed in labs - not just micro-evolution but macro-evolution too.
As for the article itself, I'm shocked at the spin involved. They were hoping to make a lot more than that and many of those that attended were from church groups, etc - certainly not the rousing public support that they article portrays. The film was universally panned by virtually every movie critic that saw it - some were genuinely insulted by the movie's insinuations. I haven't seen it and probably won't given the topic and what it represents unless I can see it for free - I don't want to give them a dime of my money.
I can be corrected here but I think we need to clarify what we mean by science. There is a difference between empirical science and forensic science. Evolution cannot be empirical science because we cannot recreate and actually test these events on a recurring basis in the lab. But, we do not discount evolution because of that and rightfully so. We can however come to reasonable conclusions based on our interpretation of the facts using forensic science techniques. And because you cannot test evolution in a lab like you can with chemistry or physics, you cannot apply the same criteria nor claim the same level of confidence as you would with those hard sciences. I believe ID is a valid application of forensic science technique, a technique which is also used but not admitted to by evolutionist. Acknowledging that would erode the "supernatural" status science has today (forgive the pun). We can have an honest disagreement about the facts without restricting the term science unnecessarily or inappropriately just to confuse and constrain. This is what happens to our society when we have CSI on every channel for hours on end with ludicrous "scientific" capabilities on-demand with instantaneous results. As society we drastically misunderstand the limitations and constraints of science because we have ignored the philosophy of science necessary to keep it in check and ensure responsible debates and reasonable results.
SUPERSTITIOUS ATHEISTS TRUST IN FAIRYTALES!
Atheists have become the epitome of superstitious because they have great faith in chance and luck to design the hamony within the complexity which we see around us. Dictionary.com defines superstitious as an adjective - showing ignorance of the laws of nature and faith in magic or chance. Atheists are superstitious because they have faith in molecular chance. Since there is no evidence that a natural law, process of nature, a mutation or random chemical reactions ever produced a self-replicating organism's preprogrammed DNA and the fact that mass is NOT the only factor in the expansion of the universe (law of conservation), there really is NO rational or valid reason to invent unintelligent substitutes for the origin of life. Even their examples of Darwinism have been left within the Science-FICTION section in most libraries of America. INTELLIGENCE BEGETS INTELLIGENCE. However, in the case of the atheist's universe - they have none.
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
tarzan, "Theist and atheist scientists accept the same scientific facts, including evolution." is correct. Visit any science blog if you don't believe me. You will find both atheists and theists who love evolution. Only some non-scientists have a problem with evolution. There is an extremely small minority of religious biologists who have a problem with evolution but they are much less than 1% of all religious biologists. The most famous religious scientists who accept evolution are Miller and Collins but there's thousands more where they came from.
I can't repeat often enough that ID is not scientific and that's why religious scientists reject it.
I saw the film 15 times this weekend in Denver (OK, I need to get a life, but we did so as part of a movie marathon: cnbc.com/id/24065330). The widespread evolutionist claim that somehow Richard Dawkins was misrepresented by editing or tricked about the topic of discussion is untenable. Dawkins is engaged in the discussion with Ben Stein; he admits that the complexity observed by microbiology could be evidence that life on earth originated from a higher intelligence, somewhere out there in the universe. Of course, he claims that such a higher lifeform must have evolved by some kind of Darwinian mechanism. But if genetic and cellular complexity provides evidence that life on earth is too complex to arise by chance, then evolutionists like Dawkins and Francis Crick are just punting to claim it must have originated somewhere else. Dawkins validates the Intelligent Design argument. The film is powerful!
-Bob Enyart, KGOV.com
Denver Radio Talk Show Host
hey jerry1 , you said "Scientists, including religious scientists, consider this movie to be a dishonest attack against science."
... do you have any proof of this? web page url references?
you also said "The reason virtually all religious scientists completely accept evolution is because..."
...do you have proof of this also? you also said "Theist and atheist scientists accept the same scientific facts, including evolution."
uhh, i thought thats why this movie was made; so that would make your statement completely false [along with maybe your other statements...?]
Why would whoever from the scientific community have liked the movie?Didn't You see the
establishment send their fellow scientist off to the gulag. Liking ID proposals is not the issue,
it is the complete suppression of them that the movie points out.I liked the way Ben Stein (God
bless em) made Dawkins contradict himself. The movie hit my conscience as an honest attempt to keep all the cards on the table.