“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” the pro-intelligent design documentary featuring actor Ben Stein, made history this weekend as it skyrocketed into place as the 13th highest grossing documentary film of all time. Since its release on April 18, the film has earned an astounding $6.6 million while only in its 3rd week in the box office.
-
(Photo: Motive Entertainment)In this image released by Motive Entertainment, actor Ben Stein appears in a scene from the film 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.'
Despite opposition from critics such as Jeannette Catsoulis of the New York Times, who called the film a “conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry,” producers of the movie said that reaction to the film and its ideas questioning the tenets of Darwinism had generated an "over the top" reaction among moviegoers.
"We did exit polling on the first weekend and the exit polling done in six states with 1,100 people showed that 97 percent of the people who were polled said they liked the film," said associate producer Mark Mathis, according to Baptist Press.
Even as the film continues to rake in record profits and defies expectations, however, producers of the film argue that those opposed to the film and its message continue to paint the film as a flop, unfairly comparing its performance to that of the high grossing documentaries by liberal filmmaker Michael Moore.
Michael Moore’s much hyped “Fahrenheit 9/11,” for example, enjoyed both millions of dollars of paid advertising and promotions in a market that was largely receptive to the film’s message of criticizing the Bush administration.
"Michael Moore comes out with a film and Michael Moore gets large amounts of time on morning shows – NBC, ABC, CBS, cable networks. He gets tens of millions of dollars of free publicity because Big Media see the world in general the way he does. Same thing with Al Gore's film (An Inconvenient Truth),” Mathis noted.
“Expelled doesn't get that, and not only does it not get that, but it gets the opposite – a massive panning,” he added.
Mathis also noted that the traditionally liberal and biased nature of Hollywood meant that comparing “Expelled” with a Michael Moore documentary was like comparing apples to oranges.
While liberal documentaries like “Sicko,” a documentary investigating the health care system, are ranked highly by critics, movies like “Expelled” are judged harshly, he noted.
"[Moore] has the tables set for him in a way that it's not set for anybody else who comes at this stuff from a conservative side. Documentary film has been traditionally a liberal arena,” Mathis pointed out.
Ultimately, however, the biggest difference between a movie like “Expelled” and many of the liberal documentaries by Michael Moore, Mathis claimed, was that “Expelled” is primarily concerned with getting the facts to audiences without bias or prejudice.
"There is not anything in the film that you can point to and say, 'This is dishonest. This is manipulation.' You can disagree and say, 'I think that drawing a connection between Darwinian ideas and Nazi ideas is not justified.' ... People can disagree. But it's not like some other documentaries. ... We didn't just go out there and interview these people and say, 'They say they were mistreated and that's it.' We were on campuses all over the place, interviewing different people and talking to different people.... Without exception, on every single campus it was acknowledged that the level of hostility toward Intelligent Design is palpable, that everybody knows about it,” he said.
“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.
Since its April 18 release, the film has attracted both praise and controversy in its challenge against Darwinism.
RSS
HAWK,
"Behe and Wells have successfully refuted the Miller, Collins, Doolittle & Robinson criticisms of his IC discussion of the blood clotting cascade."
Ok back it up then, I haven't read of any such evidence or claims of rebuttals by Behe, Wells or others on the clotting cascade.
"Facts" are certain bacteria have flagella systems; "
Indeed they do, while other bacteria lack all the parts of the flagella and yet they have complete fuctionality, something Behe and his assertion regarding IC says is impossible. According to Behe, such IC systems can't and shouldn't work when a single or multiple pieces are removed, thus his analogy with the mousetraps. Though what he ignored was that such parts can have alternative purposes and they do as seen with the type 3 secretory system. Again, Behe's igonrane defautls to an IC system. - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9618447
"What's the big deal about Behe accepting common ancestry?"
Nothing really, virtually all in science already do, but the idea of a ID propent accepting common ancestry isn't the norm Behe is perhaps the only one. Part of the reason Behe accepts it is b/c the evidence for it is quite convincing and collectively overwhelming, but alas such evidence says nothing about how life originated, only that forms today share common ancestry with those in the past and present, aka common descent. You never are gonig to to even comment on those vids I gave you huh?
True enough science and its derived world view, naturalism/humanism, can't yet speak directly on life origins, but we can speak direclty on how we humans got here from other related animals which we share common ancestry with, this we can do and due to a model like evolution. Peace,
Agentorange;
Behe and Wells have successfully refuted the Miller, Collins, Doolittle & Robinson criticisms of his IC discussion of the blood clotting cascade. Behe also successffuly refuted the naturalist attacks to the IC discussion of the flagella motor system. But this is getting into tit-for-tat discussions between the experts. You and I can only reflect on what they have to say and decide who we believe has it correct. You have chosen the naturalist (humanist) religious worldview and I the Christian worldview.
"Facts" are certain bacteria have flagella systems; interpretations for the design and construction of these systems comes from naturalist presuppositions (assumptions) or an ID presupposition (assumption). The ID approach makes the most sense to me and many qualified scientists, mathematicians, physicists and philosophers, including Flew.
What's the big deal about Behe accepting common ancestry? I'm reading "The Edge of Evolution" now where he discusses common ancestry and the limitations of evolution and continues to build upon the theory of ID. He is an independent thinker who is questioning the validity of Darwinian evolution.
As I said, my main interest is the study of religious worldviews. One of the fundamental questions a worldview provides is "where did we come from (origins)? Humanism is founded on Scientific Naturalism:
"The unique message of humanism on the current world scene is its commitment to scientific naturalism. Most world views accepted today are spiritual, mystical, or theological in character. They have their origins in ancient pre-urban, nomadic, and agricultural societies of the past, not in the modern industrial or postindustrial global information culture that is emerging. Scientific naturalism enables human beings to construct a coherent world view disentangled from metaphysics or theology and based on the sciences."
[as interpreted through the presuppositional lens of naturalism].
Through our discussion we have agreed that scientific naturalism fails to provide a sound story for our origins, therefore it fails to provide a coherent worldview. A major shortcoming for the humanists worldivew
At this point I do believe you and I have exhausted any futher items to discuss so I'll say thank you for your time and we'll probably have further discussions on other threads.
trb01,
"I have often heard that ID is not science, or does not use scientific methods. Posh."
The claim is ID as a hypothesis isn't scientific b/c it doesn't follow the scientific method, namely being falsifiable. I've asked on here and other places for people to explain how ID as a hypothesis is scientific, how its falsifiable and yet no takers.
Here is an example why ID as a hypothesis can't be used to explain certain facts and therefore isn't falsisifiable and not scientific.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
"Darwinian Evolution is all about trying to prove there is no God by claiming everything evolved from a puddle of goo, and in successive stages evolved from one species to another ... which is just plain stupid. "
The notion that life wasn't in its current form instantly poofed here and instead all various forms of life are related via distant common ancestry thus meaning we are part of the animal kingdom doesn't negate god, it just explains how life became so diverse. Why couldn't god use such an elegant self building process to bring about the variety of life as opposed to parlor tricks?
Thanks Seed, I'll have to check it out and get back to you. Cheers.
trb, You left out 'specified complexity'. This seems to be what your first post was referring to with bio-machines.
It is a very interesting debate, even more interesting is how creationist Hugh Ross dismisses ID in favor of his own creation model, which he considers more scientificly favorable while remaining faithful to Scripture.
Agent, the web sight is: http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/audio.htm
You can download the debate on mp3 to listen to it. There is also a book that I believe is from the same debate called: "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: The Resurrection Debate"
There is another one on you tube, I'm not sure if they are the same debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c47Zd2AyeCg
The single most authoritive work on the subject is by N.T. Wright, titled 'The Resurrection of the Son of God.' I've yet to pick it up.
There is no remembrance of men of old,
and even those who are yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow.
Ecclesiastes is written in the perspective of a world void of God.
According to Darwin:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
- Charles Darwin, "the Origin of the Species"
What Darwin was describing, is "Irreducible Complexity" ... the cornerstone of the Intelligence Design proposition. Applying nano-technology to biological life to discover "irreducible complexity" is what ID is all about.
Darwinian Evolution is all about trying to prove there is no God by claiming everything evolved from a puddle of goo, and in successive stages evolved from one species to another ... which is just plain stupid. Trying to cover up the fallacy by explaining how people found themselves on the earth to begin with by saying "aliens seeded the earth" is another completely foolish idea that obviously has nothing to do with science.
ID, it seems to me, is the concept of taking the scientific fields known as nano-technology / molecular engineering ...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_engineering
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/section2_84_15.html
... and turning the technology on biological structures to find molecular bio-machines that already exist, vice creating them artificially.
AFTER discovering molecular bio-machines pre-existent in nature, one could move on to metaphysical discussions of what that means, but that is not a necessary discussion for the purposes of the scientific method itself. However, by labeling this application of nano-technology as "Intelligent Design" - albeit an accurate description of the findings - the discoverers inadvertently imposed a metaphysical assumption onto the scientific method, and thereby fall victim of being drug into discussions about the spiritual vice staying on target with discussions about nano-mechanics.
The concept of Darwinian Macro-Evolution, or the changing of one species into another (a fish into a dolphin; a dinosaur into a bird) is preposterous and has NO scientific evidence for it.
The concept of Micro-Evolution that Darwin discovered on the Galapagos Islands (and improperly extrapolated to Macro-Evolution) is as established a fact as that you or I were born on a certain day and year. Birds really do grow longer/shorter beaks based on their environment/food supply. Animal breeders use the concept of micro-evolution all the time to keep pure-breeds pure and to use exceptionally performing animals as stock for breeding more of the same.
One of the things that I have noticed over the years, is the rightly criticized confusion between the inferences that one might draw from Intelligent Design, and what ID itself is ... I don't think Stein spent too much time on this, rather he spent time on the inference of where Atheistic Darwinism leads to (and good on him for doing that).
I have often heard that ID is not science, or does not use scientific methods. Posh.
From my perspective, ID is just simply a theory that at the molecular level, biological "machines" exist that could not have evolved - in order for it to function, it could not have been engineered in a more simple manner. Moreover, concepts such as how many "proteins" or "genetic instructions" are required as a minimum in order to construct one of these molecular bio-machines or to put together the most simple living form of life. ID is the search for those examples. NOT to prove there is a God, but rather to understand complex structures at the molecular level. The hypothesis that one may derive from this, is that they could not have evolved. That may lead to deriving yet another hypothesis of how did they come into being to begin with.
To have created this molecular bio-machine theory, one had to have used scientific equipment to discover them. The question is whether or not ID can come up with standard rules of what is a machine and what is not, how many machines make up any given system, what are the methods and procedures for looking into whether or not something is a machine in its simplest form or whether the same action can be performed with a more simple engineering.
seedplanter, no. But please refer me to it, I will read and reflect on their conversation.
Agent, have you heard the debate between Flew and Habermas on the resurrection?
All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.
Ecclesiastes 1:8
“naturalist assumptions.”
What assumptions? Genetic mutations occur in the labs and in the wild. Such a large head to head fusion would act as a post sign for what occurred in the past and stands out in the chromosome today. We have 2x23 pairs of chromosomes, while extant apes have 2x24 pairs, so the thinking goes, IF evolution and common ancestry is true, we should be able to find evidence for it somewhere in our genome, if evolution is true we must be able to account for this apparent missing chromosome. And low and behold we find the evidence for where the chromosome went; it fused and became our 2nd chromosome.
Let’s hear how ICR, AIG and other such ‘creation science’ centers explain such facts and evidence regarding ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2 fusion.
“The science still appears to be in its infancy and there is a lot to yet learn to see if it is fully accepted or rejected.”
What part of this science is in its infancy?
“To tell you the truth, I don't have a keen interest in these details and will rely on the ID and creationist experts for their take on these issues’
Translation: I don’t care to know how science works, what is says in the details, or the actual facts in the matter, I will in the end just take what I’ve heard elsewhere on faith and not bother to inspect anything, challenge myself or my way of thinking. And while we’re at it, perhaps you should know Michael Behe, the leading proponent of IC, agrees and accepts such evidence regarding evolution and common ancestry. Wrap your head around that one.
HAWK/Parrot,
The irony here is profound!
“In Dover Trial, ACLU’s Expert Witness Mischaracterizes Intelligent Design
By: Staff
Discovery Institute’
So you’re quoting something verbatim (no surprise there) and you quote the Discovery Institute, of which only Behe bothered to show up to court to defend the notion of Intelligent Design. Well, you have to ask yourself why Stephen Meyers, Bill Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Casey Luskin and others from the DI didn’t even bother to even attempt to support their pet idea in Dover?
In retort all they can offer is a subtle ‘Dover had it wrong’ Web log on their personal site? My, how incredulous. That is like promoting a certain idea and then the idea going before a judge to be validated and then the proponents all don’t show up and cry and whine and in response post a blog b/c they didn’t get their way. Well, if they wanted to get their way, maybe they should have showed up to support their pet idea!
HAWK49,
Theist - one who believes in god, of the many types of depitctions of god.
Deist - one type of a description of a god whch a theist can follow. Both of these are not mutually exclusive and Flew says openly he's a deist, which is quite different than saying he's a beliver in an active agent god who's bending unverisal laws at his will in a whim for particular groups of people.
I understand Flews fondness of isntances of IC, but just b/c Flew finds them convincing or appealing doesn't make them true. What makes then true is the facts and evidence, which unfortunatly for Behe, Flew and those who follow IC as evidence have failed to read up on all the evolutionary processes invovled which show how such systems aren't IC at all. Again, refer to the past links I gave on the vids in which Miller discusses the blood clotting cascade and the flagella both showing how they're not IC.
Hawk: Well if the Disco' 'tute would have bothered to show up for the trial and actually defend their "scientific theory" then maybe you would have a case, but like most dishonest people, they've chosen to fight this battle in the media rather than have their day in court.
Agentorange;
I looked at the shows you recommended. They look compelling, but Answers In Genesis and ICR both have taken exception to the naturalist assumptions. The science still appears to be in its infancy and there is a lot to yet learn to see if it is fully accepted or rejected. To tell you the truth, I don't have a keen interest in these details and will rely on the ID and creationist experts for their take on these issues. I look at the larger picture and the battle between the religious worldviews.
Agentorange;
The Dover case is not a valid example
The court case is real, the decision was based on misrepresentation by an ACLU evolutionist.
In Dover Trial, ACLU’s Expert Witness Mischaracterizes Intelligent Design
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
September 27, 2005
Harrisburg, PA -- The case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District opened in federal court yesterday with the ACLU calling its first expert witness in an effort to tell the court how it should define science. The ACLU is suing the school board of Dover, Pennsylvania for adopting a policy that requires students to listen to a three-paragraph statement about the theory of intelligent design.
The ACLU’s first expert witness, Dr. Kenneth Miller, testified that the scientific theory of intelligent design is untestable and therefore unscientific. Later he contradicted himself by proceeding to discuss how he has made various arguments in scientific forums testing design theory.
“Most of Dr. Miller’s testimony today against intelligent design was simply based upon a misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design,” said scientist Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.
“Dr. Miller’s testimony is disturbing because it demands that the Court rule on the nature of science and the validity of scientific theories—matters which should be left to scientific experts and not be decided by courts,” added Luskin.
Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision
Traipsing into Evolution is a critique of federal Judge John E. Jones's decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. In this concise yet comprehensive response, Discovery Institute scholars and attorneys show how Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design.
Agentorange;
Deist, Theist? it is important to carefully define words between holders of differing worldviews.
From World magazine:
...Mr. Flew still does not accept any revealed religion, including Christianity. He has simply become a "theist," or, as he says, a "deist," believing that God created the world but no longer has a personal relationship with it....Key to his conviction that there must be an intelligent mind behind the universe is the nature of DNA. As Nancy Pearcey, author of Total Truth, explains it, "At the heart of life, at the center of each cell in every living thing, is a language, a code, or what we would call information. There is no known natural process capable of producing information. A message or information is diagnostic of an intelligent source." ...
Mr. Flew asked for titles of books on Intelligent Design. He wrote Mr. Habermas that he was finding William Dembski's mathematics in The Design Inference over his head but that Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box is an "incredible book." That title argues that the minimal cellular and biochemical requirements for life display an "irreducible complexity" that cannot be random but must have been designed. In January 2004, Mr. Flew told Mr. Habermas that he had definitely become a theist."
Ecclesiastes is the only book in the Bible specially written for atheists.
Do not try, but Do.
-Yoda
What if it is all true after all?
meditate on this I will.
Agent, I am not denying the evidence for common decent. I will even admit that after reading The Evolution Controversy I was a bit taken back by the evidence brought forth by Thomas B. Fowler and Daniel Kuebler who both profess Christ, if I recollect and who both subscribe to evolution.
Once again how long will you search before the search is over Agent?
What if it is all true after all?
As spiritual fulfillment continues to allude you, and your life is being spent denying the one who died for you how do you think you will feel when you come face to face with love personified?
What does man gain from all his labor
at which he toils under the sun?
Ecclesiastes1:3
‘Flew is now a deist and ID proponent and understands the active hand of God in the creation,”
But by definition the deistic god is not an active intervening one, but an initial mover only, aka passive.
‘The term "God of the Gaps" is becooming too stale, don't your think?”
Nope, it’s spot on for how IC argues from person incredulity. ‘I can’t figure it out, or I don’t see how it could have evolved, therefore the designer did it!’ however the instances Behe championed were shown to have evolutionary path ways in Dover, so it’s not only putting god into smaller and smaller gaps over time but also theologically bankrupt. Here, hawk, explain these no one else has. Certainly the ID hypothesis can’t be used to explain such facts, unless you believe in a deceptive god/designer.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
Seedplanter,
Ya, I am the one tip toeing around here, while you still refuse to even bother to acknowledge the evidence of ERV’s and Human chromosome 2.
Agent, you are disapointed??? Secret agent man, now I find that laughable! I previously questioned your motivations, but you countered with spurious accusations and tried to tip toe around the real issues at hand pretending to be honestly interested in discovering the truth.
Some people think that only a Christian can be a hypocrite...
The question is, how long will search for the truth before you face the Truth personified?
Agentorange,
Thank you for a rather civil and to the point response.
Flew is now a deist and ID proponent and understands the active hand of God in the creation, but is not sure who that God is at this time according to his testimony for his conversion. The point is that he had to go beyond naturalism for his explanation.
Is chenical evolution not a study any longer. It began with non'life to life explanations. Evolutionist Dean Kenyon abandoned this study when he realized the "information" factor of life and naturalism couldn't provide the answer.
The term "God of the Gaps" is becooming too stale, don't your think? Afterall, the ID or creationist models do provide for a rather comprehensive view and an not out to fill the naturalist gaps.
The issue about naturalism coming up short, especially for the non-lfe to life issue is that the ID and creationist models provide the needed explanation that fits reality. This is a major threat to the Humanist worldviews as they are founded on Scientific Naturalism. The actual war is between religious worldviews, not science. True science would welcome new theories that provide plausible answers to life's questions.
Seedplanter,
I am disappointed, I thought you’d want to actually go over that evidence for a change. Ecclesiastes, sure but not in while. I’ll meet you ½ way, you research and come back with the answers to my questions/evidence I propose and after you follow up with some question on Ecclesiastes then I’ll follow up. Fair?
Agent,
One might say that your response was predictable. That is to say if natural materialism is reality and the mind is merely physical activity in the brain, then your thoughts and beliefs are in fact the result of heredity and environment. You actually pointed this out when attempting to minimize Christian conversion to mere cultural influence. I am not dismissing culture as an influence, but it obviously cannot account for Muslims having been born in Iran that upon conversion to Christianity are willing to die for Christ. It also cannot explain the number of Muslims in the Middle East who are having visions of Jesus. One particular instance comes to mind of a woman who was incarcerated for militant activities who having experienced this vision of Christ turned to Him and is now involved in Campus Crusade for Christ Ministries.
I would also like to point out that your materialistic notion of the mind reveals how deep the roots of determinism run in philosophical naturalism. If this is true then it is impossible to know this truth that you are suppose to be seeking. Your arguments are nothing more than conditioned reflexes. Your search for truth is therefore illusory. I would say that this worldview is less than satisfying to say the least. If you are dedicated to materialism then it is no wonder why you are searching for fulfillment.
"Meaningless! Meaningless!"
says the Teacher.
"Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless."
Ecclesiaistes 1:2
Agent,
How God created the world is of little relevance in comparison to the fact that He is the author of creation. I suppose that at some point I will take some time to research the issues of contention with more thoroughness. Alls it takes is just one single discovery to throw the whole theory in convulsions. Therefore I think that for the sake of argument to move onto better things, such as your relationship with this creator, whereby you can discover meaning to your existence. Have you ever read the book Ecclesiastes?
“Human chromosome 2 fusion and ERVs are interesting and deserve to be examined.”
Ok, we agree they deserve to be examined. So please review them critically and give us the feedback.
“Agent this is exactly what you do on a regular basis.”
Yes, I have cited people’s opinion or words on the matter in the past (behe and common ancestry), but generally I try to show the facts and not live by sound bites or clips from person X as Hawk mostly does. I have stated Behe accepts common ancestry, however I try to distance in making the case that his opinion is the sole true voice or that b/c he simply states it makes it so as hawk implied.
“You continuously point to NAS and others to give credence to natural evolution.’
WHO is NAS? If NAS = Natural Selection, then yes I do refer to this as it’s a process, not a person Citing evidence isn’t a logical fallacy. Natural selection is an evident fact as a process, just like the flowing of the tides, it’s not sheer opinion from a person and therefore using it isn’t a logical fallacy.
“I had a powerful experience in which God revealed Himself to me in a powerful life-changing way.’
If you’re open to sharing, I am all ears on this one.
‘You have to understand that most of the people here on Christians Post were not “born” into Christianity as say Roman Catholics are.’
Ya right, the vast majority of all people who are a particular religion are so directly b/c of where and when they were born. Had you been born in Mecca you’d be a Muslim; India a Hindu and so on. Your religion like most others is a matter of consequence of your time and place of birth; the faith of the parents and the offspring are almost always the same for this reason. You said it yourself, your religion gives you purpose, hope and your life meaning and without it you’d be at a loss, this is why for you its hard to even fathom that this is all there is and you’re part of the animal kingdom.
Seedplanter,
“I have not personally investigated them nor have I dismissed them if you recall.”
Well, you never really commented much on them, here’s your chance, batter up, swing away! I don’t recall ever even talking about Collins’ conversion to anything, but yes he and Behe both accept notions of common descent. It’s hard for Collins to work with genetics so closely and not accept the theory of evolution and its implications.
“Common decent does not equate naturalism or materialism for that matter.”
So I take it you have no problem with considering you have shared ancestry with extant apes then, or are am I wrong.
‘I along with many others assert that the evidence has not conclusively demonstrated the history of humanity as put forth in Darwin’s theory.”
So what they do you make of ERV’s and HC2? How can you realistically have a given view in the matter if you’re ignorant of such facts like ERV’s and HC2, isn't this an illogical conslussion on your part? Might it be more reasononable to review the evidence and they form a view as opposed to the knee jerk response you hold now?
Who just gave me the thumbs down on my most recent comment and why?
"Just b/c person X claims Y about a proposition doesn’t give it credence"
Agent this is exactly what you do on a regular basis. You continuously point to NAS and others to give credence to natural evolution. You point out statistics of the number of atheists that are in the hard sciences versus the number of Christians as though this should make theologians cringe. Obviously those who have experienced God are adamant about sharing that with others. We of course understand that Christianity wasn’t born in a vacuum, but it was birthed in the face of uncontrived evidence of the resurrection of a man who assumed our own personal guilt. No matter how psychologists have tried to eradicate guilt in the human conscience, it is Jesus alone who can turn guilt into freedom and shame into glory. Psychologists may take years trying to help someone without certainty when one single moment in the presence of God can completely make the person brand new.
You have to understand that most of the people here on Christians Post were not “born” into Christianity as say Roman Catholics are. Many Christians were brought up in church, including myself which I am thankful for. While Christians do take on their own sort of culture, evangelical Christians are not so out of de facto as Hindus. I had my rebellious time of searching for satisfaction, conferring with Mick Jagger. At the peak of my own existential experience in which I considered giving up on normal societal function (although I was doing fine in almost every conceivable way) I had a powerful experience in which God revealed Himself to me in a powerful life-changing way. This new found reality transcended my prior appeal to my parents’ knowledge and authority. It even seemed to accelerate past the experiences of my fellow Christian peers. In short God rescued me from self-destruction and instantly gave me a desire to preach the Gospel and gave me the boldness to do it. Now I don’t expect you to believe the Gospel because of my experiences, but I would hope that you would at least consider the possibility of its reliability and power to change your life as well. Often times atheists’ make the error of thinking that Christians are driven by heaven or hell. This has little to do with most of our motivations. I am not insinuating that they are not real and do not have their place in Christian theology or that they are somehow altogether irrelevant. What I can say is that I would serve God even if I was going to hell, simply because He is worthy. Chew on that one!
Human chromosome 2 fusion and ERVs are interesting and deserve to be examined. I have not personally investigated them nor have I dismissed them if you recall. At the same time neither has Michael Behe or even Francis Collins for that matter (whose conversion I believe you simply dismissed out of hand). I along with many others assert that the evidence has not conclusively demonstrated the history of humanity as put forth in Darwin’s theory. Common decent does not equate naturalism or materialism for that matter.
Hawk: What reason do you have not to trust Dawkins? Are you not a sinner like him? Like me? Like everyone else that posts on this site? Do you think that non-Christians are more likely to lie? Or that Christians are less likely?
“Dawkins and Flew just understand the limitations of naturalism.”
No, with respect to ‘how life got here’ Dawkins prefers the concept of ID (not that he accepts ID, but if given the choice between natural bs supernatural) being the origin of a natural one (aliens), as does Collins, Flew I am not so sure of. I think he views it more from a Deistic angle, meaning ultimately entirely natural forces initially caused from a creator and not the active hand waving of some omniscient god. Notice the difference there? Flew doesn’t accept poofing magic god, or active agent god, but rather deistic first initial cause god, and so this isn't what you accept anyway, so why would you lend it as your basis for your arguement anyway?
“What is the naturalist explanation for creation of non-life to life?”
As of yet, Abiogenesis is the leading one. Though at one time there was no natural explanation for what kept the planets in motion, or how rainbows formed or why the animal kingdom is so diverse, or why electricity and magnetism seem as one, and on and on, then came the science renissance and now we do have such natural explanations and none of them involve the active string pulling of god. Only on the perimiter of ignorance do we humans invoke god, it's entirely theologically empty. Essentially you’re arguing for gaps of ignorance and by defacto you hammer god into it. I guess in time when we find the explanation you and others that like to do this will have put god into such a small gap that it will appear pointless, but hey I’ve been saying it’s not theologically satisfying to put god in gaps for a while now. Either way, evolution doesn’t deal with origins of life, how many times must this be said? Read up on for yourself in an actual biology book.
“"proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem. Which came first, proteins or DNA?'"
RNA, or something more primitive and quite similar to it.
“From ICR….The THEORY of EVOLUTION has numerous problems….. The biggest problem comes right at the beginning with the supposedly spontaneous generation of life from non-life”
Hmmm, that’s interesting; I don’t recall the theory of evolution ever describing how life formed at all? Ya, that’s right, it doesn’t. The theory of evolution describes the processes by which life becomes more diverse, NOT how it ORIGINATED. Hypothetically the origins can be anything, god, aliens, natural causes, in the end they don’t negate what occurs once you have replicating polynucleotide’s which NS can act on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Hawk,
“No offense; but I have reason not to trust Dawkins.”
Whoaah, the logical fallicies just don’t end folks. No wonder you were so fond of copying and pasting. Hawk, if on one hand you cite Dawkins and his opinion from ‘Expelled’ and use it as evidence for you position in an argument (already a logical fallacy as noted) and then later usurp that by following it up by saying ‘he’s not one to be trusted at all’, well, you’ve essentially just shot yourself in the foot.
So you don’t trust him, but yet you’ll take his word, and above all others including evidence and use it as your basis for your argument? Surely you see the logic problem there.
Seedy,
“Is this your form of therapy?.... You are a man who is intense about being in control.”
What is this, physcoanalysis class? No, I just like to discuss some current issues like all people. Well, you’re a pink poodle who likes to drink lemonade, no really now, I like to engage in dialog with people, particularly those of the other end of the spectrum as to only look at things from the same view is well, not logical.
“I find you dodging or reworking other issues on the floor.”
I am the one dodging here? Look in the mirror pal, you’ve to explain how ID is falsifiable much less scientific. And don’t forget you’re dodging in explaining the evidence on human chromosome 2 fusion and ERV’s.
“but also yourself that there is no God”
I’ve told you, I am agnostic to a deistic god, and if the evidence is there it’s there and perhaps, just perhaps that’s why I bother to stick around here. Besides why else would I even bother asking Schumacr for the site on the issues unless indeed I was at least curious?
HAWK49/parrot,
“Can you specifically counter Flew and Dawkins about their comments that I posted?”
Geeeez, did IQ’s just plumet or something…..what part of ‘appealing to authority is a logical fallacy’ didn’t you comprehend? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Just b/c person X claims Y about a proposition doesn’t give it credence; the facts are immutable evidence which stands alone regardless of who’s claiming them. This is why as I stated that just b/c Newton agreed with Alchemy doesn't make it so, just like just b/c Dawkins agrees with Evolution doesn't make it so.
Hawk
I'm not sure why you felt the need to mention Dawkins, whilst his views are quite prominant at this time, the idea of a universe that is not designed existed long before him and will be around long after he has gone (and me!!). As I mentioned earlier, I can completely understand why to you the universe appears designed, I once thought that to myself but I have come to see it is a trick of the mind.
Regards
Steve
Agent, you spend so much of your time putting your spin on things here on Christian Post. I will grant you that you are intelligent enough to hold debates regarding the evolution issue, but often I find you dodging or reworking other issues on the floor. While I understand you have doubts it seems that you spend an awful lot of time trying to convince not only others, but also yourself that there is no God. Is this your form of therapy? You are a man who is intense about being in control. There may be a reason why you do not have peace of mind and why you go to such great lengths in search for significance. To devout your life arguing for purposelessness and unguided naturalism seems to reveal an obvious emptiness. Faith does require a person to step out from their comfort zone where they have complete control. Faith requires humility and it is through this faith that we can come to know the God who is real. A person doesn’t have to understand everything before believing nor does he have to believe everything he doesn’t understand. Faith is the simple beginning of a development of a relationship with God.
ifeelfine
No offense; but I have reason not to trust Dawkins. I read his piece to the LA Times. I'll accept the testimony from CP articles, Ben Stein and the producers of Expelled and those that have already seen the film. Thank you.
"Then I will respectfully disagree with you. I see very strong evidence for design."
Thats fine by me, its a free world.
Steve
Steve,
Then I will respectfully disagree with you. I see very strong evidence for design.
Agentorange;
What you fail to acknowledge is that accepting the philosophical presupposition of naturalism is the persons view or opinion that directs his interpretations of observations, no different than the scientist that uses the presupposition of ID or supernaturalism. Dawkins and Flew just understand the limitations of naturalism.
you misconstrued what I stated. I didn't say "evolution"; I said naturalism wrt
"nor provide for spontaneous generation from non-life to life." What is the naturalist explanation for creation of non-life to life? Where did the DNA instructions for life originally come from? "proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem. Which came first, proteins or DNA?'"
From ICR "The theory of evolution has numerous problems, some of which are absolutely enormous and for which no adequate solution has even been proposed. The biggest problem comes right at the beginning with the supposedly spontaneous generation of life from non-life. Neo-Darwinian scientists admit this, recognizing that proposed evolutionary scenarios do not model reasonable conditions on earth, and could not have produced anything like the complex life we see all around us--even single-celled life.
Hawk: Just go to Dawkin's website and you'll hear directly from him that his comments were taken completely out of context. You should be more honest about things.
Dear Hawk
Its quite simple, nature shows no sign of design, look I've stated that with no name dropping what so ever
Kind regards
Steve
Steve,
what is the basis for your testimony when many professionals in the ID and creationist camp do not agree with your observation? Can you specifically counter Flew and Dawkins about their comments that I posted?
"And if the will of the people says it’s OK to torture babies or steal from others if you’re strong enough to do it, then those are acceptable to you?"
51% is our rule of law, so yes. Of course not, but alas these are pure hypotheticals and in reality no sane advanced democratic consensus would come to vote to allow such actions in the first place. Our laws as of now are based on such democratic consessus backed by personal ethics on what we find civil and for our needs. I find it hard to imagine in the future how or why people would want or condone openly raping people or harming the elderly legally for example. Only 200 years ago slavery was the norm, but ethical viewpoints on the matter changed and now slavery doesn't exist in western societies. This is how ethics can be and are refined for the good of man and they are reflected in our laws, so please don't always view it as if only the bad could or would come from it. Look to the OT and how archaic some of the punishments were in, pretty much anything resulted in death. This too is how human ethics have been refined further. But I do understand you and the angst from the change.
schumacr,
thanks for the link, I will review it and let you know my thoughts.
"You instantly reverted back to the negative fear vs. the positive one I’ve said Christians (and really all should) have of God."
But this is no way to make logical choices if there be a god. Making choices under heavy emotions like fear and love causes one to abandon logic and reason and react only instinctively, and with religions and how they tactfually use this ploy it shows in the end its a basically built on such emotions like guilt, greed, fear, and not logic and reason.
"In other words, their government then. You instantly swung then to somehow joining Moses and Osama at the hip, which is mind-blowing to me."
The Nazi's appealing to their govt to rationalize and justify their actions doesn't make them any more ethcial or moral, it's a cop out and its the same form of tact employed by those others I mentioned. SSDD. They move the target of responsibility and blame onto others, in the Nazi's case it was there generals, and with Moses it was Yaweh, either way t's all the same tactic so in the end they can not have to be morally conscience of their actions. Had they really wanted to be moral they would have been been guided by their own conscience and made a decison not to be involved in the war, at any cost, this including moving from the country or facing death.
Regards,
AO
agentorange:
<< Sure, I am open ears.>>
OK, then check out a small article I wrote for the good folks at gotquestions.org: http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html. Keep in mind these are my thoughts and conclusions, not theirs or other Christian’s on this site. And as here, I only had so much room to work with so some of the more meaty premises (near the bottom) couldn’t be fully developed as I’d have liked.
<< Ya, but its not even comparable. If you say you don’t like the pie there is not a single doubt or worry that you’ll be snuffed out and spend eternity in hell as a consequence. >>
Respectfully, you’ve missed my point. You instantly reverted back to the negative fear vs. the positive one I’ve said Christians (and really all should) have of God. Plus, that door to Hell is locked from the inside, not the outside.
<< Democratic republics, either via states or nations, which represent the will of the people.>>
So the will of the people determines ethics, eh? Does it have to be 100% of the people or does majority rule (51% is good enough)? And if the will of the people says it’s OK to torture babies or steal from others if you’re strong enough to do it, then those are acceptable to you? Those are now ethically cool. And don’t punt to “But the people wouldn’t will such things…” You have zero idea what the will of the people in the future holds. See, that stance doesn’t work. Ethics must transcend culture. I’m open now for your second suggestion.
<< No, the Nazis on trial said they were just following orders passed down to them by the high above them >>
In other words, their government then. You instantly swung then to somehow joining Moses and Osama at the hip, which is mind-blowing to me.
<< Yes, in the animal kingdom when life is tough and during hard times parents will eat their young, or canibalism will occur, this has occured, and does occur in tribes in the amazon jungles with people, but most people are familar with the Doner Party and what people in hard times will result to just to stay alive >>
I’m not eager to get into an abortion debate, but your point above with respect to the issue is way off the mark IMO. People don’t have abortions to stay alive in a life-or-death situations (yeah, yeah, the life of the mom is threatened in .02% of the cases, blah, blah…) – the vast majority of people murder their baby and take an innocent life because they consider the child inconvenient, plain and simple.
" Natural materialism certainly is hard pressed to condemn abortion considering it is often quite normal among animals "
Yes, in the animal kingdom when life is tough and during hard times parents will eat their young, or canibalism will occur, this has occured, and does occur in tribes in the amazon jungles with people, but most people are familar with the Doner Party and what people in hard times will result to just to stay alive. Do such actions in the animal kingdom mean human moraltiy can't or doesn't exist then with regards to abortion or canabilization? No, for the simple reason that we don't have to live under such dire straights and need not operate like a 'lord of the flies' society.
Needless to say though, if a family were to find itself in a situation as the Doner party was, the same result would likely occur, and it's not b/c they wanted to canabilze eachother, but it's b/c they mutually understood the only way some could survive was to eat those who perished.
When you really think about it, abortion or canabilization of ones own species is anti-evolution as it immediately destroys the next progressing generation, though in hard times, desperate measures are required and the parents instinctively know the consequences. But then again what makes you think a science theory should or could describe how we humans should conduct ourselves in all manner of things? Mighten we find moral justice and our laws applied by ourselves based on our own determination more in line with out needs?
"It is called the genetic fallacy."
Genetic fallacy, like what? On the issue of eugenics, no I don't think we should condone or support it, however, if some people have a genetic condition in which they are more suseptiable and their spouse is too, their offspring will have a 1/4 chance of inheriting such a condition and such conditions the parents would likely want to know how to avoid for the sake of their offspring. I see nothing wrong with have parents informed on their genes and the implications and letting them decide and dealing with it from there. I am against any govt. against allowing or disallowing only certain people reproduce though. Ken Miller touches on it on one of the parts in this lecture- http://youtube.com/watch?v=PaHcsGzyp4A
"What I possed to you is evidence by expert testimony. "
No, this isn't objective evidence, it's subjective, personified by the speaker and not by the facts and evidence. According to your logic, we can and should believe in Alchemy despite its lacking evidence for it simply b/c Newton and other scientists of his time did. See how horrid this logic is? Well, that is basically what you're saying with respect to Dawkins, Myers and others. Just b/c Dawkins or others consider evolution to be true doesn't make it so, the evidence (see facts, testing, observations) for it qualify it as being credible. Besides that, simply appealing to an authority in the manner you did is also a logical fallacy, but that's another matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
A persons view on a given issue isn't evidence or facts for a proposition, facts for a proposition exist outside of ones own view or opinion and this is what I was refering to by evidence and facts. and no, I don't live on here, I am actually up doing some work and have some spare time.
"nor provide for spontaneous generation from non-life to life."
Once again you fail to recognize how evolution doesn't describe the origns of life in the first place, but rather the diversity of life. They are different things and have different evidence for or against them.
Hello Hawk
I am not sure how naturalism can provide evidence for something that does not exist, i.e design inference. Having once held that view myself I can completely understand why you come to that conclusion though, I have come to see though that it is a trick of the mind to place patterns etc..on events when they do not exist ( I still love to look at the clouds though and see images in them...)
Steve
"Evolution makes no moral statements whatsoever." (On abortion)
ifeelfine, It might be helpful if you clarified whether you are referring to theistic-evolution or natural materialistic evolution (Neo-Darwinism). Natural materialism certainly is hard pressed to condemn abortion considering it is often quite normal among animals and there really is no standard reference point for the development of moral judgements other than what ever "we" think it to be as a society and culture. Even then a particular action in question would not be a moral judgment, but merely considered unproductive, unbeneficial or harmful at best.
Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton is however considered the father of eugenics. Sterilization wasn't developed until after Darwin met his maker so it is difficult to say what he thought on that issue.
While I am not necessarily siding with you against BTW (I did not read his post), it is worth noting that this line of argument only reveals the social impact of Darwinism, it does not demonstrate whether or not it is the true history of humanity. It is called the genetic fallacy.
Agentorange;
What I possed to you is evidence by expert testimony. It is evidence that naturalism cannot explain design inference nor provide for spontaneous generation from non-life to life. It demostrates that Dawkins is conflicted due to the shortcomings of the philosophy of naturalism pertaining to origins and that Flew finally realized the naturalism assumptions don't work and the ID model works much better.
Charmile: So how exactly does evolution prove that the world hates people who fear God?
runningdoc: Well, the high school graduation was much lower during revolutionary times and illiteracy was much lower so the Bible isn't the case. If you would have pointed to the progressive era (late 1880's until about 1920 or so) you might have had a better shot at making your case but in any event. The only corrolation between education and evolution is that folks that are more highly educated tend to understand and accept evolution . . . present company excluded apparently.
BTW: Evolution makes no moral statements whatsoever. Abortion existed long before anyone ever heard of Charles Darwin.
Hello I feel fine72,
runningdoc: Actually I was responding to your post so the question to you should be, how did evolution lower high school graduation rates at your alma mater since 1968?
It has to do with the reason behind literacy and morality. When this nation was founded, the immigrant Europeans brought a reason to learn to read. They needed to read the Bible because they believd they were their own believer priests. They also had a strong sense of Biblical morality with regard to work, honesty, and sexual morality. These things were reflected in our constitution that James Madison said was only suitable to rule a Christian people because it required people who would police themselves.
The introduction of evolution as an alternative explanation for the origin of man, and the subsequent exclusion of the Bible from schools had a profound effect on both literacy and morality. Most young people today do not read newspapers or books. They watch television. Most have no religious reason to read so they do not. With, the exclusion of the bible from schools and the teaching that we descended from apes without the help of any diety, our children have come to believe that they can have sex underneath the bleachers in middle school as long as they use condoms. You cant the rise in teen pregnancy back to date when the supreme court threw the bible out of school. The teaching of a godless evolutionary orign for man makes it acceptable to abort unwanted or defective babies. If we are never to be held accountable and if defective babies only sour the gene pool, then why shouldnt we kill them.
The Bible taught us the golden rule, the 10 commandments, and made us aware that God was watching. It improved our behavior.
I believe that is why intelligent design is so violently oppossed today. May the gods of random determinism preserve us from a resurgence of Biblical morality. Our children might stay sexual continent long enough to learn to read.
Jesus said, if they hated me, then they will hate you. The world hates people who fear God. This is exactly why the film is being attacked by anti-Christ sorts of people. It totally makes sense and proves that they were obviously doing God's will. This also proves that the Bible is yet again true for all sorts of reasons especially this one.
“I can tell you what I believe that process is if you’re interested.”
Sure, I am open ears.
‘Was she afraid because I’d beat her or cause her pain if I didn’t approve of the meal?”
Ya, but its not even comparable. If you say you don’t like the pie there is not a single doubt or worry that you’ll be snuffed out and spend eternity in hell as a consequence. If you’re left with the impression either b/c she told you or you read that if you tell her you don’t like her pie or reject it outright that you’ll go to a place like hell, it’s not really much of a choice now is it? It’s like her hold a gun to your head with it cocked and you already knowing that if you say its nasty she’s pulling the trigger.
‘But do people really obey this built-in mechanism and act ethically’
Most do, most people are partially intrinsically morally guided and don’t require the carrot and the stick, otherwise all non believers and those who even doubted, but your rationale would be out on a rampage. But we don’t see that. People despite their fondness of god or his implicit rules via scripture still find a philosophical need to be kind to all in our group, call it humanism. It’s our nature to be harmonious, but we do have the potential for evil and havoc.
“Who is “our”? The U.S?”
Democratic republics, either via states or nations, which represent the will of the people.
“the Nazi lawyers tried to say that the soldiers were just following the laws of their land and shouldn’t be punished”
No, the Nazis on trial said they were just following orders passed down to them by the high above them, and this is the same type of excuse used by Moses and Osama bin laden and their horrid actions were all excusable b/c they were doing gods will. This is the same rationale that people use when they bomb abortion clinics.
runningdoc: Actually I was responding to your post so the question to you should be, how did evolution lower high school graduation rates at your alma mater since 1968?
agentorange (part 2):
<< And yet people still behave morally and ethical despite no belief in god or the here after. Why do you suppose that is? >>
Because the image of God (His nature) remains stamped upon everyone. But do people really obey this built-in mechanism and act ethically? If they did, I wouldn’t lock my door each night. There is a difference between morals and ethics – morals describe what you do; ethics describes what you *ought* to do.
<< Wouldn’t our own adjudicated laws which we pass be the measuring stick for what we condone as ethical? >>
Who is “our”? The U.S? Various nations? There’s the problem. During the Nuremberg trials, the Nazi lawyers tried to say that the soldiers were just following the laws of their land and shouldn’t be punished. But one of the judges rightly asked, “But sir, is there not a law above our laws?”
<< People do drugs b/c they are physically and sensory stimulating >>
Right, they *want* to do them even though the evidence says they’re damaging – that’s my point.
agentorange (part 1):
<< Considering all the previous gods and religions, which existed prior to and following Christianity? What’s there to leave us with the impression that it is not one of the same long list? >>
If you want to go down the diff’s between Mithras, Horus, Attis, Dionysus, Tammuz, (and the like), and Jesus, I can do that with you. But in short, none on that list are grounded in space/time history as Jesus Christ is. Not even close. But, raising the discussion up to a broader level, I’ve spoken to you before about the need to systematically approach the study of theology in the same way you would your scientific pursuits. Just as there is a way to brush aside error and arrive at the right conclusion in the lab, you can eliminate confusion, separate truth from falsehood, examine the evidence, and reach the truth about God. *But* it can’t be done haphazardly – you must be methodical and use a systematic process. I can tell you what I believe that process is if you’re interested.
<< But this is what all religions are principally built upon, the hope, and the optimisms of some life after death. >>
Hope and life after death are certainly present in all religions. But I would disagree that they are built upon that. I would challenge you to read the book of Acts and see what the messages of Peter and Paul were primarily comprised of – hopeful thoughts and/or fear? No, instead they were based upon the presentation of historical, verifiable, and evidential facts that centered on an actual person that lived, died, and rose from the dead (which they witnessed). In other words, the legal tests for truth that I’ve spoken to you about.
<<. It’s a power play on primal emotions like fear, psychology 101.>>
I’d respectfully disagree and relay the mature fear that I and other Christians have. Imagine my wife makes me a wonderful dinner that we both enjoy. She asks, “Did you like it?” and I respond yes. “Oh good”, she says, “I was *afraid* you wouldn’t” Was she afraid because I’d beat her or cause her pain if I didn’t approve of the meal? No, she wanted to please me because she loves me. That’s the fear I have of God. Because of all He’s done for me, I want to do my best for Him.
‘it isn’t shaky at all”
It’s not shaky at all? Considering all the previous gods and religions, which existed prior to and following Christianity? What’s there to leave us with the impression that it is not one of the same long list?
“He was, of course, wrong because that’s not the case.”
But this is what all religions are principally built upon, the hope, and the optimisms of some life after death. If it means following strict living guidelines then people will obviously, if they take the after life as a reality, take precautions and measures to ensure they will be there in the end, so strictness of guidelines wont cause a person to waver from such a thought when they consider the alternative of the carrot – hell. Additionally, such a strong use of carrot and the stick ensure that no matter how evidence looks and how wavering ones faith might be, they will in the end, be less likely to give up their religion for sake of fear of going to hell. It’s a power play on primal emotions like fear, psychology 101.
In other words, no sinning as it were. Now with Christianity, it adds a little complexity to the equation in which if offers a bail out program personified by the sacrifice paid by their god and the reassurance that all sins are forgivable and therefore no matter if you’re a pope or a homicidal murder so long as the person ‘really really believes’ then they will be saved.
“there are many who have ulterior motives for wanting to believe in science and not religion”
But this is a false dichotomy, many of the most profound believers held scientific views and vice versa and therefore they aren’t mutually exclusive. One can be scientific and still find a need for god and spirituality.
“No God = no absolute moral constraints or responsibilities”
And yet people still behave morally and ethical despite no belief in god or the here after. Why do you suppose that is? Besides, many of the OT laws originally passed down no one still follows. No one kills people for working on the Sabbath or for practicing magic, and for good reason. Wouldn’t our own adjudicated laws which we pass be the measuring stick for what we condone as ethical?
“drugs are bad, but folks do them”
People do drugs b/c they are physically and sensory stimulating, if they weren’t and they were simply bad for ones body there would no reason to take them. Evidence suggests what is, but not always what ought people to do. Yes, drugs generally are bad for ones health, however some drugs have medicinal usage and so it’s not so much black and white, but shades of gray depending on how they are used and in what quantities and qualities.
agentorange:
<< Persuaded upon what though>>
The truth, evidence, reason, rationale, etc.
<<ultimately it stems from evidence and if the evidence isn’t conclusive, overwhelming or shaky >>
But that’s just my point – it isn’t shaky at all; Christianity is very intellectually robust, and that’s why I believe. No leap of faith in the dark, but a step of faith in the light.
<< True, but there are ulterior motives to wanting to believe in religions as opposed to believing in science. >>
No doubt, that’s what Freud suggested – that all religion is built upon wish fulfillment. He was, of course, wrong because that’s not the case. In actuality, the Bible says the reverse is true: Mankind doesn’t embrace God and desire Him; instead, it is in rebellion against God. No open hand or open door, but a closed fist and a shut door. They don’t want Him to exist because they wish to live the way they want and not in accordance with His mandates or standards.
I don’t disagree with you that there are those who have ulterior motives for clinging to a religion, but I would also respectfully turn the statement around and say there are many who have ulterior motives for wanting to believe in science and not religion. Why? No God = no absolute moral constraints or responsibilities. Huxley said as much as have others. And without God, science doesn’t rule, but power does.
Don’t scoff at this – people act contrary to evidence all the time (e.g. drugs are bad, but folks do them, exercise is needed, but most won’t, etc.) Why? As I said to you earlier, true belief is a matter of the *will* - it isn’t mere assent to intellectual proof. This is why Jesus asked those who opposed him, “Why are you reasoning about such things in your *hearts*?” Not mind; heart – the seat of power and will of each person. Truth has to be welcomed by the will or else it gets rejected with bad/tragic consequences being the end result.
“could not and would not those things have been arrived at if evolution had never been thought of?”
I don’t know, it’s hard to say, maybe, maybe not. The theory itself is just used as a model, a backdrop which can be used to explain and predict outcomes in those fields which its applicable and without such a model its hard to make genuine progress. I think if they didn’t have it from early on, they would have discovered it eventually as such a model explains the data just like any other science theory does. One can’t collectively review all the data from all the different realms and see the connection and not come up with a such a model.
The genetic mutations are random, however the rest isn’t so in the abstract the entire evolutionary process isn’t random at all. I can't stress this enough, so many are lost on the idea that it's random, or that based on this that it can't work, but they neglect the processes which are and aren't random and once viewed from uphigh it becomes apparent its not random at all.
“Could you give me something specific in medicine that would not have been discovered if we did not believe in evolution?”
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12125190
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/117/1/184
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/17/15/2176
“Arent things like gross anatomy, cel biology and endocrinlogy subject to falsifiability?”
Well sure they are, but you’ve not shown how the instances you gave are using ID falsifiable. At least with Behe he resorts to IC (irreducible complexity) which from his view requires a designer, but neither the eyes, nor testis are IC, so they fail right there. Like I said, since the designer can make other animals with internal testis, why not us? Sure he’s have to make the sperm able to cope with a bit higher temps, but in the end such a design would be more ideal as it would remove the possibility of hernias and having the testis damaged.
And what of the eyes and wisdom teeth again? You’ve never explained why the designer would make them wired so the brain must flip the image, or why there must be a blind spot, to me this isn’t intelligent at all, it show signs of neglect. Again, other animals don’t have such poor setup, and yet you’re trying to give the impression this the work of some omniscient being instantly making bengs? Please.
Here, a short vid on ‘stupid design’, - www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw
Again, ignore them if you like, but if you do you wont be acting objective.
“Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life”
Gee based on that logic I better get cracking and read all the religions which have authors who implore the readers that indeed they are the sole way, well that would be about all of them, so really it doesn’t help.
Agent
Doc is fine, But could not and would not those things have been arrived at if evolution had never been thought of? Have not there been lots of things discovered in the field of agriculture that did not require submission to the god of deterministic randomism?.
Could you give me something specific in medicine that would not have been discovered if we did not believe in evolution?
The comments about breast feeding and Martin l King were addressed to Ifeelfine72.
HAWK,
what, no copying and pasting?
“How about the admission from a conflicted Dawkins that life could have been created on earth by an exceedingly intelligent source?”
That’s not evidence, that’s just one persons admission based on the plausibility of how life got here on earth and he’s choosing from only the ID list, from which he prefers the natural side (aliens) over supernatural (god). That said, Dawkins doesn’t find ID as how life originated here or in the universe the most plausible, he appeals to natural mechanisms. Read his books on it.
“How about Antony Flew giving up his entire life's work of atheism/evolution for ID as he had to be intellectually honest and follow the evidence?”
Ditto. This isn’t evidence, this is one persons admission. Clearly the idea of ‘falsifiable evidence’ has flown over your head. Sorry, but a persons opinion or admission isn’t what’s considered objective falsifiable evidence, try again.
runningdoc,
can I call you doc?
“Tell me how evolution has improved our lot in life’
You mean just some examples on how evolutionary theory has improved society or our lively hoods? Agriculture and medicine are the 2 largest avenues, namely crops that are more pest resistant and able to endure different temperatures than previously and medicine mostly dealing with proactively making drugs to target how certain viruses mutate. Google evolutionary medicine and agriculture..
‘How did evolution improve car safety and breast feeding rates?”
Ummm, totally wrong application, evolution deals with BIOLOGY, and not man made objects like cars. However, the selective process of refinement seen in R & D departments with cars and other man made objects is akin to how a species is refined further and further over successive generations so they gradually improve or become more specialized is more accurate over time. The first cars lacked brakes and seatbelts and airbags, now they are standard, but this is just an example. Over time such refinements resulted in fewer deaths and an overall better vehicle.
‘Was not Martin Luther King a preacher?’
He sure was, but this has nothing to do with biological evolution.
“Were'nt most abolitionists Christians and at the time certainly creationists.”
I guess so, but many Christians on the other side of the isle were pro-slavery, anti jim crow and so on. Again, this has nothing to do with biology though.
Agentorange;
Evidence for ID?
How about the admission from a conflicted Dawkins that life could have been created on earth by an exceedingly intelligent source?
How about Antony Flew giving up his entire life's work of atheism/evolution for ID as he had to be intellectually honest and follow the evidence?
They both understand design inference and they also understand that Darwinism can't adequately explain it away. They understand Darwinism comes up short. Scientific interpretations based on the untestable philosophy of naturalsim falls short for explaining the origins of life.
PS agent orange, Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life. If you really want the truth look at Jesus. Please dont set your hair on fire just because I said it. runningdoc
Schumacr,
“Pistos”, which is derived from the verb “to be persuaded””
Persuaded upon what though, ultimately it stems from evidence and if the evidence isn’t conclusive, overwhelming or shaky, such faith can said to be built on hollowness, or as you put it, near stupidity of those who follow such a proposition.
“And the only reason to believe in anything (religion or science) is because it’s true.”
True, but there are ulterior motives to wanting to believe in religions as opposed to believing in science. It’s somewhat easier to see why one would want to believe in religions as in the end the followers are told if they follow X Y and Z they get eternal life. Such promises are not built on real evidence of it, but rather greed and our inability to grapple with death and loosing loved ones. This added ‘ummmphh’ is particularly why, even when a persons faith might waver, they can look introspectively and find it difficult to pull the plug on such faith as in the end, they have this ‘carrot’, (no disrespect) hanging in their minds eye and so it becomes not so much a battle of logic, but a batter over primal fears of death, the unknown and greed. I mean think about it, who wouldn’t want to believe in an afterlife? In the end it doesn’t matter if noah’s story wasn’t global, but local, or if it occurred at all as in the end the allure of afterlife is the strongest card in the suit of religion.
Agent orange, Other than making comments about the quality of the design, you still have not anwered the question of whether or not the circle of Willis, the circadian rhythm and or endocrine light and dark cycle, the importance of temperature in spermatogenesis, are things that can be explained better by a ID construct as opposed to deterministic random chance.
Arent things like gross anatomy, cel biology and endocrinlogy subject to falsifiability?
Or is it that you just dont like the examples?
by the way, looking at the benefit of outcomes is common in medicine. We call it evidence based medicine. If it really doesnt work, we dont use it. As an evidenced based outcome, our societal change since the introduction of evolution as the primary explanation for the existence of man has been an unparalled disaster.
runningdoc
Seedy,
'besides pessimistic natural materialism."
You mean you’ve allured them into the thoughts of blissful afterlife thus setting the expectations higher than the here and now in which they exist, is it any wonder such imagined places where they are told of only good things will make this material world seem pessimistic. Had you not told them of such an afterlife or if they were quite skeptical of it (wait some years, they might be )would they not find this life, its materialism and all its grander still not enough to have purpose to live for? I would think so, after all if you can wait for is to go to your eventual heaven, why not involve yourself in life risking tasks and if you die, then you’ll be there that much sooner. Anytime you're ready Seed I'll take your response on evidence for ID and how it's science.
Regardless if there is or isn’t an afterlife, so think or to live as if this life is meaningless or of non consequence as you’re somewhat inferring is antithetical to the success of our species and of human progress.
"You are just dodging a question you cannot answer."
No, I am responding first and foremost to those who speak with me most often, it's called manners and respect, but I guess I wouldn't know anything about that, as I am just a 'fool', right?
Hello Agent Orange, Tell me how evolution has improved our lot in life. It needs to be in something that could not have been arrived at without a belief in the existence of the deterministic god of evolution.
I feel fine 72, How did evolution improve car safety and breast feeding rates? Was not Martin Luther King a preacher? Were'nt most abolitionists Christians and at the time certainly creationists.
runningdoc.
I have tried all morning not to answer these posts. It must be addictive. :-) I wonder if I will evolve into a higher more intelligent life form by posting?
agentorange:
<< if you have, no offense, such over the top, utter, compasionate blind faith, nothing can make it waver, so really evidence to the faithfull means not so much.>>
I understand why you say that. However, let me respectfully offer another point of view. When you ask most people what “faith” is, they’ll usually say something to the effect that, “Faith is believing in something that you cannot prove.” If that’s true, then strong faith would be when you believe something but you suspect it isn’t true. And the strongest kind of faith, therefore, must be when you embrace something that you know isn’t true. I obviously disagree with that progression because the Bible says that faith is a gift and it is not the gift of stupidity.
On the contrary, faith is not what you have in the absence of truth and evidence. “Faith”, as used in the New Testament, comes from the Greek word “Pistos”, which is derived from the verb “to be persuaded” and means to be persuaded as to something that is true and has authenticity. Some of the definitions you’ll find in Greek Lexicons state: “the state of being someone in whom confidence can be placed”; “reliability”; “that which evokes trust”; “pertaining to being worthy of belief or trust”; “conviction of the truth”, and so on. Not surprisingly, this is why Hebrews 11:1 says, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (KJV). The writer of Hebrews tells us that faith is comprised of “substance” (literally in the Greek: “among the meanings that can be authenticated”) and “evidence”.
So when I say that disproving the resurrection would destroy my “faith”, I mean just that: my trust and conviction of the truthfulness of Christianity that is based on the evidential, historical, and legal-test proof claims would disintegrate because, well, they’d have to – what I believed would have been a lie. And the only reason to believe in anything (religion or science) is because it’s true.
Orange, wow that is pathetic. How am I supposed to engage you if you will not answer my question, you fool? REALLY! You are just dodging a question you cannot answer. XD
Agent, what a man of great faith you are! If any one bothers reading the last dozen posts, I’m sure they will find it very helpful in future discussions. When you’re ready to have a serious discussion about faith (without the platitudes and false pretenses) let me know. Maybe we can actually have a productive transparent conversation.
And as a matter of fact I do have children. Thankfully I have something that I can give them worth living for, besides pessimistic natural materialism. And yes, when they die they can go with a smile on their face knowing they have lived a life worth living. Hopefully you will discover the same.
"Truth? What is truth? Why in your material brain would you bother yourself with such trivialities?"
What, so you're not interested in truth then? Are you scared, is that it?
"Truth is of no consequence in a mindless materialistic universe"
Ha, what nonsesne. the truth and our knowledge of the truth in all things in our universe influence our behavior and therefore how we act towards eachtother. one need not think in metaphysical mumbo jumbo to see how all material forces are interconnected in this universe, and in this there is some truth and the more we know the greater harmony and tranquility we can live in in the here and now, the one place we know for sure exists.
"Truth is subjective at best or at least irrelevant in a world void of meaning and purpose."
so you're saying the only purpose/meaning you have in your life is the alure of the after life then? nothing here matters to you then? nothing here gives you meaning, gives you purpose? are you that dilussional seedy, surely you have kids, or something of importance in the here and now which provides purpose and meaning, yes?
"I WANT THE TRUTH!"
well, more of less, though I was hoping to speak with you and others on the ID, how its falsifiable, where the actual well tested supported articles and journals are out there on it, the eivdence on it and establish why some, like yourself think it's science.
"I have already given you an answer to this elsewhere. If you don’t like it, that is of no consequence to me."
actually all you did was decry by fiat that indeed its falsifable and scientific. you didn't provide a single example on how it could be falsified or the geniune evidence for it; just a decliration is all I heard. by all means, if you choose not to back it up but simply decry by fiat 'that it is' and leave it at that, well I wont be the only one to have lost respect for you.
"Many Christians subscribe to theistic-evolution, but your emphasis is on unguided processes. "
I would believe in the guided method if there were geniune evidence for it, but so far it's not all that persusive. ultimately though, regardless if lifes evolution was guided or not doesn't equate to 'no god', so it's not relevant.
"I have yet to hear a good answer to my charge as to what purpose it serves for a natural evolutionist to attack Christian theism considering it is viewed as a product of evolution in the first place by materialists."
So you're asking for the evolutionary origins on religion then? Steven Pinker also explains these, I'll give ya a hint, primitve minds + 'superstition'.
schumacr
"If you want to kill Christianity with just one blow, disprove the literal, physical resurrection of Christ from the dead."
Well, that's quite hard, and really almost pointless as in the end religious belivers simply appeal to 'faith' in their belief, after all the sheer logic of comming back to lfie from death is not enough to waver your faith, so what makes you think any future evidence would? if you have, no offense, such over the top, utter, compasionate blind faith, nothing can make it waver, so really evidence to the faithfull means not so much.
Besides, my point isn't to disprove your god, his resurection I am mostly interested in Science its applications and how some on this board find ID appealing and discussing it forward.
"I’d say the resurrection of Christ from the dead."
Ok, let me back it up, b/c obviously you misread what I meant. show me a question, scientific or otherwise and in which a supernatural explanation was used to solve it. in otherwords, show me a math problem, an equation, or a a phenomina in nature in which injected the supernatural in the end created new derived true knowledge. show me the equtation were ' X' couldn't be found, and then by using the 'god dun it' as an explanation actually explanined something and increased real knowledge on how the something works.
"But there can’t be a deviation from the way things ought to be unless there is truly a way things ought to be. There can’t be a way things ought to be unless there’s a design plan that says ‘this is the way things ought to be’."
Ok, here's the dilemma to that though, do you believe in destiny/fate or free will, you can obvoiusly only have one, and with your statement its hard to pin down which you like best to explain away why your loved one died, so please help me understand your take on it.
“From what we can tell the mind cannot exist outside of the matter, so what makes you think it can exist outside of matter?”
Without traipsing through another ‘search for truth’, let me just say that for me it would require more faith to believe that the mind is merely material in existence. It would require even more faith to believe that it evolved naturally through random acts of mutations. If you want to look at some scholarly research on the issue why not dive into the works of Alvin Plantiga? But why would you want to waste your time on that when you could be debating theists?
“C’mon, seedy I want truth, just like we all do.”
I WANT THE TRUTH! C’mon AgentOrnery, is that the best answer you can come up with? You are on here more than any one single Christian believer and you say that it is because you are searching for truth? I think that we all have our reasons for believing what we do; whether it is natural materialism or Christian theism. Both are emotionally charged while only one is spiritually enriching and satisfying and the other… well lets just say it allows for certain momentary self-gratifications. And by the way it is Muslims who believe that the paradise that awaits them is full of wine, women and gold.
“Besides, can’t you show how ID is falsifiable?”
I have already given you an answer to this elsewhere. If you don’t like it, that is of no consequence to me. Thank God it’s still a free country and we have the right to disagree with one another. Some may be naive enough to think that you are here to discuss evolution, but when pressed, it is natural materialism that you are arguing for. Many Christians subscribe to theistic-evolution, but your emphasis is on unguided processes. While you may have toned down the rhetoric of atheism as of late, it has been made clear where you stand and what exactly it is that you are promoting.
Here you are on a mainstream Christian web sight – rather than on a more technical sight with scientists who specialize in biology. But it is for the truth that you seek. Meanwhile, I have yet to hear a good answer to my charge as to what purpose it serves for a natural evolutionist to attack Christian theism considering it is viewed as a product of evolution in the first place by materialists. I demonstrated at length numerous times here on CP as to the multiple benefits of Christianity. Your responses have been less than satisfying to say the least and only go to prove at length the nature from whence you draw your arguments and that it is in fact less than honorable as per your intentions. Truth? What is truth? Why in your material brain would you bother yourself with such trivialities? Truth is of no consequence in a mindless materialistic universe. Truth is subjective at best or at least irrelevant in a world void of meaning and purpose.
runningdoc: Glad to hear you're back out, hitting the pavement. I will concede that some things were better 40 years ago but lots of things weren't. 40 years ago, inter-racial marriage was illegal in many parts of the country. Jim Crow was on his death bed but still alive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws). Automobiles didn't have nearly the safety features they have now. Breastfeeding was actually less common than it is now and the list goes on.
I take a theistic approach to evolution. I believe it happened exactly the way scientists say it happened - I just interject the "guiding hand of God" in certain spots. I absolutely agree with AgentOrange though in that ID effectively reduces God to a "god of the gaps" and I find that extremely insulting which is one of the reasons I am so passionate about it.
For what its worth, the rural high school I went to had a lower graduation rate 40 years ago and sent few students to college. The last time I heard (a few years ago), they sent more than half of the graduating class to college. So certain schools may have issues but some are improving.
agentorange:
Sorry, forgot to address one of your other questions to me:
<< Show me a single instance in an equation or any confounding question or problem where a supernatural agent was injected and it resulted in an increase in actual verifiable knowledge.>>
I’d say the resurrection of Christ from the dead. It was supernatural in nature and resulted in quite a bit of knowledge transfer, including answering the questions of: (1) is there life after death (2) which religion/faith is true (3) whether God intervenes in His creation. There’s more but you get the point.
If you want to kill Christianity with just one blow, disprove the literal, physical resurrection of Christ from the dead. If you do, this board will be silent and we will all go onto something else. Without a risen Christ, there is no Christianity, which is one of the main points Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 15.
schumacr
‘when you look at something like the cell and see the amount of engineering and information flowing through it, the principle of uniformity says that only an intelligence could have assembled such a thing.”
Yes, cells are complex, however as already noted, the flagella as a cell can be shown to have evolutionary pathways, so it’s false to say that simply b/c it’s complex it’s therefore designed ore requires intelligence. To assume it is designed is to ignore how evolutionary processes are gradual and work in a ratchet fashion, building upwards in complexity. Snowflakes and hurricanes are quite complex and exhibit higher degrees of complexity and right before our eyes, however only a fool would advocate there is a god out and about making snow flakes or hurricanes directly. We in the educated civilized world understand their nature to stem from the natural affects and processes with earth, chemistry and physics.
I am sorry of your loss, I can only imagine. This is why I can’t find omibenevolence a reality.
“And recognizing design is, I believe, one of those things.”
But ‘design’ and how it appears from person to person as I think you’ll agree is quite subjective. Ask an uneducated person in Africa if rainbows are designed and more than likely you’ll get some superstitious response invoking some god. Likewise, in Behe’s ignorance on the literature of the mammalian immune system and the flagella and others he asserted the notion of IC. I mean look at atomic matter, how can each of those billion billion atoms ‘know’ how to align themselves so perfectly to form matter? Surely one could subjectively think this is a sort of design, but only if they don’t understand how matter has to exist as a state and this state is controlled by physics. You see, only in ignorance can such things as rainbows, snow flakes, flagella’s and blood clotting be found to be express examples of design.
"as opposed to random chance simplest solution evolution"
it's not random in the abstract, if it is please explain how its random or purely chance.
" do any of your resources talk about the evolution of the Circle of Willis? "
Not off hand, I can look into it, but honestly thes Circle of Willis is akin to the bacteria flagella in which we're arguing over gaps of ignorance and utlimately as its found evolutionary parthways and mechanims people like runningdoc will have to concede that god can't hide in that gap and he'll hammer him into another gap of ignorance. of course such hammer into gaps isn't science.
runningdoc
“Didnt know that about spermatogenesis did you?”
Sure I do, the point is though that surely the designer could have created the testis to remain in the body like other animals by tweaking the amount of heat the sperm could he exposed to and still survive. But the designer didn’t do that, in his infinite wisdom he thought it makes more sense to let them flap outside the body. Perhaps the designer should have set them up so they could have withstood higher temps so they could have remained in the body wall? Alas, that didn’t happen and instead we’re left with poor design of hanging testis, which risk possible injury. How you can't recongnize this is beyond me.
“When a fact appears to fit a design model, you switch from criticizing the idea of design to criticizing the design itself.”
Criticizing the design is the main point, if the design is less optimal than even our understanding of how such systems could be improved, surely you know something is wrong, namely the design some people are infering.
‘Why wouldnt a designer make our eyes able to see infrared and see in the dark. Well, could be another part of his design intended for us to have our eyes closed when the sun went down”
So, the sun goes down in most places for ½ or more of the entire day and this you’re arguing is the reason why we should then close our eyes. Mmmmkaaaay. Close our eyes for what, so wild predators can eat us? Oh, I know, to sleep right? Well, that’s nice, but many mammals hunt at dusk or during the night, in fact many mammals have owls and cats have exceptional night vision. Why didn’t the great designer see fit to give us better night vision? In your eyes, it’s so we can take a nap….ok.
“Circadian Rhythm”
Right, but we sleep for around some 8 hours a day, and in many places 12 or more hours depending on the time of the year it’s dark, so why would the designer make such horrid night vision when ½ or more of a day would be dark? Considering the further one goes north and depending on the season you could have a 20+ hour period of complete darkness, and this you’re saying is a good design.
“So Eyeballs designed with our hormonal axis in mind.”
Still doesn’t explain the blind spot, or how the brain has to flip the image to compensate for poor wiring. Explain wisdom teeth, what kind of design is that? Try to rationalize that one.
“better than they fit a evolutionary random chance model.”
Evolution ISN’T chance, it’s deterministic.
agentorange:
<< Ok, so there is uniformity one can’t doubt that, but what kind of uniformity is it? Is it the type, which exemplifies omibenevolence at every turn? Hardly. >>
My first response is that, when you look at something like the cell and see the amount of engineering and information flowing through it, the principle of uniformity says that only an intelligence could have assembled such a thing. Now you posit a super ET race (natural) for its existence and I posit God (supernatural), but I think we both agree that ‘some’ intelligence is/was behind it.
Secondly, regarding the question of omnibenevolence, I understand your point perhaps better than most. I watched my first wife die *very* young from a rare cancer and I was left alone with our baby daughter. Did I think God was ‘good’? No, I struggled mightily with your question. In the 3,000 character limit we have here, I can’t begin to convey the tug-of-war that occurred, but I will say this: I knew that what happened “ought not to be”. But there can’t be a deviation from the way things ought to be unless there is truly a way things ought to be. There can’t be a way things ought to be unless there’s a design plan that says ‘this is the way things ought to be’. And finally, there can’t be a design plan without a Designer. Again, not enough to tackle such a large issue I know, but it speaks somewhat to my question of God being good, your complaint about apparent biological imperfections, and the wrecking ball that’s swung through what used to be a perfect creation.
<< Does it make sense to say b/c we can’t falsify 1+1=2 then therefore we should not use our logic and reason? No. 1+1=2 is simply logic and self evident.>>
I think you misunderstand me – I don’t disagree with you, but instead *agree* with you on this point. Some things are indeed self evident, or what one author calls, things “we can’t not know.” And recognizing design is, I believe, one of those things.
thelordismylight, one at a time rookie. you left and I must respect seedy and runner as they at least engage in real dialog.
Orange-
You have yet to explain to me the Miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe. I would love to see you explain the unexplainable.
“Why are you so obsessed about debating God?”
C’mon, seedy I want truth, just like we all do. Besides, can’t you show how ID is falsifiable? From what we can tell the mind cannot exist outside of the matter, so what makes you think it can exist outside of matter? Only wishful thinking and the greed for eternal life would have people believe that somehow after you’re dead you can in mind continue on.
‘There is an intimate dependence upon the brain to be able to think.”
Exactly. We are, at least in our personality and mind, our physical, material brains. If you slip and hit your head on the curb and come to after sever brain trauma, your personality will be altered and you’ll no longer view things as you previously did. Just as the effects of material drugs have on our sensory view of the world, so in the same manner our brain depends and lives on in a material framework.
‘it cannot really explain why our mind thinks the way it does”
And why can’t it? The human brain is more or less a radically advanced ape brain. Ever heard of Steven Pinker and evolutionary neurophysiology and neuroscience? Go read one, ‘how the mind works’, all based on evolutionary explanations for why the brain works as it does. Pinker has many books on such explanations for evolutionary processes of the brain.
Hello I feel fine72, I am back to running and doing fine. The Circle of Willis is an example of a fact that can be better explained by ID than by evolution. Night vision is the same. Did I miss something here? I did not think we were disproving evolution. I thought we were looking at factual information which could be best explained by a design model as opposed to random chance simplest solution evolution. You seem to be an advocate for the evolutionary model.
Your question, what problem do Christians have with evolution? Simple. The Bible says God created the Heavens and the earth in 6 days. Big God. The same God places demands on our behavior such as those found in the big 10. In the past 40 years I have watched our society go from teen pregnancy occuring rarely to 50% of the girls in some schools being pregnant with school daycare provided.
At the start of that 40 years we taught in school that there was a God to whom we must someday give an account of behavior. That had a somewhat sobering effect on many. That effect is gone and our children suffer. When I graduated from High School in 1967, the graduation rate was 95%. IN that same hi school where God's name cannot be mentioned unless a student takes it in vain, the graduation rate is 65%. Great progress in schools which must teach Darwin and are unable to teach the Bible.
Now go set your hair on fire and run around the room shouting, ignorant fundamentalist right wing nut 100times. It will help you burn off the extra energy you will have from having to encounter someone with a historical perspective on the effect of the unopposed teaching of dawrinism in our schools. The problem is that the longer we teach evolution the less intelligent it seems our student bodies become.
adios, runningdoc.
As for the evolution of the eyes, that's already been discussed at length. Check this out: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/05/ncse-eyeing-id.html
The Circle of Willis is just another strawman - just like the bacterial flaggelum before it. I don't have access to the best science on the web but it looks like from my rudimentary search, there is lots to say about it. AgentOrange, do any of your resources talk about the evolution of the Circle of Willis?
Seedplanter - And your mind seems pretty made up too. But I know enough about AO to know that his mind is not made up. If evidence pointed to something other than evolution, he would follow it, but it doesn't.
Admit it, there is no amount of evidence that will make you disbelieve in God, is that right? I know its true for me. So, why do you say that AO is the one who has his mind made up?
Seedplanter: AgentOrange isn't debating God. He is debating folks on the facts of evolution. Why do so many Christians have a problem making that distinction? Evolution has nothing to do with faith. Please get that right.
Why do any Christians have an issue with evolution? I don't get it. I am a Christian and I have no issues with evolution. What is it about evolution that you all find so scary?
Hello Seedplanter, I would not count on Agentorange not answering that question. He is probably a lot like me, sitting here with not a lot that I have to do this afternoon. runningdoc
"What drives you to spend your time on this forum trying to convince others that they should be worshiping the unknown, uncaring, unseeing, unfair, unjust God of random chance?"
That is the question of the hour. But don't expect Agent to give a direct answer to that one. He helps keep our mind sharp, but his mind is already made up. As with all atheists, his faith is a personal matter and unlike most his faith runs very deep.
Agentorange, You have left being an advocate for evolutionary differentiation and become a desgin critic! The point of the circle of willis is that it reflects design and forethought. Didnt know that about spermatogenesis did you? The same thing for the location of testicles. When a fact appears to fit a design model, you switch from criticizing the idea of design to criticizing the design itself.
You asked for factual information that would fit a design model and I gave it to you. So now you can cease saying that no one who believes creation reflects a creator has offered you any. That straw man is gone at least in our conversation. :-)
Now, How about dem eyes?
Why wouldnt a designer make our eyes able to see infrared and see in the dark. Well, could be another part of his design intended for us to have our eyes closed when the sun went down.
Go look up Circadian Rhythm. All of our pituitary axis/hormones interact around a 24 hour or so clock. Our cortisols rise and fall in rhythm to the sun cycle. It is extraordinarily harmful to humans to consistant fight that cycle. Sleep deprivation, rotating shift work all shorten our life spans.
So, it could be the designer did not see a need for us to see in infrared. In fact, too much light at night disturbs our sleep and our circadian rhythm. As Neal Diamond said, I thank God for the nighttime.
So Eyeballs designed with our hormonal axis in mind.
David said in the Psalms that we are fearfully and wonderfully MADE.
So there are 4 concrete examples of factual information in creation that fit a design model better than they fit a evolutionary random chance model.
Why do you struggle so with this?
What drives you to spend your time on this forum trying to convince others that they should be worshiping the unknown, uncaring, unseeing, unfair, unjust God of random chance?
runningdoc
“Well think about it, who we are, personality and all is summed up in our brains, quite literally our brains are our central being and without the matter of our brains the mind/personality can’t exist, take a look at what happens to a person who’s had brain trauma, they aren’t the same the mind is formed from the matter of the brain.”
Agent, I would have to say that this doesn’t sound very convincing. While the brain is central to our body’s function, it does not make us complete as a person. You also base your assumptions that personality can not exist apart from the body on your materialistic perspective that cannot account for the existence of personality in the first place.
Known relationships between the mind and the brain merely prove that the brain’s physical state affects its thinking; if you get hit on the head, you’ll stop thinking. There is an intimate dependence upon the brain to be able to think.
Even if natural materialism could account for life as we know it, if evolution really works the way it is said to, it cannot really explain why our mind thinks the way it does. It would seem more likely that we would think in a single dimension. When we observe our reactions to our world and our own existence there are certain presumptions that come naturally such as meaning, purpose, morality, beliefs, dignity, etc. These are all thoughts that come from the mind. Materialism is not only inadequate to explain these ordinary thought processes, but neither do they fit a mindless material universe.
(flagged me self)
Agent, my point was that you are on here posting so much that it is impossible for one person to keep up with you. That may be considered a compliment if you choose. The other side is that one has to wonder why? Why are you so obsessed about debating God? It seems that as an atheist you would find more satisfying things to do with your time. I enjoy a good debate, but even I have other things to do. It makes me think that you are almost looking for reasons to believe in God. But then I have read some pretty good arguments here and there that you seem to just shrug off whether you have a good response or not. So, it leads me to think that it is more out of bitterness than anything. Maybe you are mad at God because of Agent Orange? It would make your continuous attacks more personal and hence more relentless. In all of this it looks to me like God is drawing you, you know it, but resist Him ever unceasingly.
Earlier… ‘Without the circle of Willis a good number of humans would never have made it to adulthood.’
Ok, so you’re saying most wouldn’t make it to their 18th birthday, fair enough. Then, with horrid logic you follow it up with….
“a simpler design would have sufficed to keep humans alive into their 50's I suppose.”
Wow, why the all of a sudden change? First you say a good number wouldn’t make it to their 18th b-day without an ideal Circle of Willis, and now you turn around and say a simpler design would have allowed them to live into their 50’s? Well, which is it?
‘So why would it be there. If the simplest design that would make us work is the standard of evolutionary change, then we would not need the anterior communiating or posterior communicating arteries”
I already covered this, evolution doesn’t suggest the most simple design is optimal or defacto by natural selection. The complexity or simplicity of an organ or system depends not on being the simplest of all possible methods or mechanisms possible, but those, which are just ‘good enough’ to allow the species to propagate and spread its genes are sought.
“why arent all mammalian testicles safely tucked away? Why didnt the simplest model prevail?”
It’s so much about being ‘simple’, it’s about which design exemplifies the best amount of genuine intelligence and forethought for the fitness of the species and descending testis, all things considered isn’t ideal or even remote decent design.
“Human testicles have to be outside the body or at 98.6 degrees they will not undergo normal spermatogenesis”
And so this to you would say is intelligent design then? Why not make the sperm more able to handle higher temps so they could remain internally like some mammals? Surely if other mammals which have higher body temps than us can make it work, why didn’t the designer see fit to put his prized creation with such an obvious feature?
Wisdom teeth, more intelligent design right?
Agent,
You never seem to run out of comments; curious, are you getting paid to post on CP?
“What makes it more plausible/probable?”
Like I said, look at the sheer size and volume of the universe and how many other possible life forms could have existed prior to us and then how they could have intentionally or indirectly resulted in life being found here. Based on how by in all instances the natural method/explanation is the most pure, more true and explains at most length exactly what occurs or has occurred where as injecting the supernatural into an explanation explains nothing in detail or doesn’t provide epistemological knowledge on the matter.
“Why is matter before mind more reasonable than mind before matter?”
Well think about it, who we are, personality and all is summed up in our brains, quite literally our brains are our central being and without the matter of our brains the mind/personality can’t exist, take a look at what happens to a person who’s had brain trauma, they aren’t the same the mind is formed from the matter of the brain.
‘but admit it: no divine foot in the door allowed.”
Not when it comes to Scientific testing and that is only b/c the scientific method doesn’t permit injecting supernaturalism to explain away confounding issues and this is a good thing b/c injecting supernatural agents have never explained anything in any detail, it’s never led to an increase in knowledge of how the universe really works, and this is why doing so is counter productive. Show me a single instance in an equation or any confounding question or problem where a supernatural agent was injected and it resulted in an increase in actual verifiable knowledge.
“Just the principle of uniformity alone helps trace things back to a principal Engineer.”
Ok, so there is uniformity one can’t doubt that, but what kind of uniformity is it? Is it the type, which exemplifies omibenevolence at every turn? Hardly. Information is just another way of saying ‘data’, they are interchangeable, so to ask ‘information coming from simple data’ is redundant. If I am wrong, elaborate so I can appreciate your view.
“Truth itself exists outside of the scientific method”
Epistemological ‘truth’ exists eternally as is, regardless if we are ignorant of it or not, however the scientific method is the best method to coming to understand epistemological knowledge leading to truth. ‘Truth’ as it relates here, falls back to logic, such as 1=1 =2, such logic is used to build greater knowledge using Science, and therefore like I said, logic is used to support science and not the other way around, you were simply just asking a nonsensical question.
‘all of which cannot be falsified or proven by science’
Does it make sense to say b/c we can’t falsify 1+1=2 then therefore we should not use our logic and reason? No. 1+1=2 is simply logic and self evident.
Agentorange, must have been late when you answered. You seem a bit "testy." Remember your manners or we will have to get you a mentor. Insults do not establish your ideas.
I think you mentioned complexity. With regard to the complexity of the circle of Willis, a simpler design would have sufficed to keep humans alive into their 50's I suppose. It would not be needed to keep the planet populated. So why would it be there. If the simplest design that would make us work is the standard of evolutionary change, then we would not need the anterior communiating or posterior communicating arteries. Again, an Intelligent Design model would fit the circle. The evolutionary model would predict something else. Maybe the designer actually could care about us and wanted us to live longer?
Now since you seem interested, why arent all mammalian testicles safely tucked away? Why didnt the simplest model prevail? Well, good question.
Human testicles have to be outside the body or at 98.6 degrees they will not undergo normal spermatogenesis. If human testes had been place by evolutionary biology inside, the race would have ended quickly. So how do you get human testicles to descend and at what point in the process do you need spermatogenesis. You need them to work on the first model. Not in the millionth evolutionary revised airframe.
There, another fact that fits a design model better than an evolutionary one.
I hope you got a good nights sleep and can answer with a smile today. :-)
runningdoc.
agentorange:
<< again, as far as plausiable, the natural one wins out.>>
Because…? What makes it more plausible/probable? You must go back to an eternal ‘something’, either a natural eternal universe or a supernatural (outside of time/space) Creator. Why is matter before mind more reasonable than mind before matter? A cause that embodies none of its effect (meaning, personality, purpose, etc.) vs. a cause that exemplifies all of them? I’ll answer the question for you: because of your worldview and complete, presuppositional commitment to naturalism. And I’m not trying to insult you here – but admit it: no divine foot in the door allowed.
<< What billions of miralces? >>
Given you and I have wrangled over this before, I won’t waste your time reposting all the out-of-the-park probabilities from the anthropic principle, life coming from non-life, information coming from simple data, etc. That’s what I mean. Just the principle of uniformity alone helps trace things back to a principal Engineer.
<< It's not derived from science, but from logic/reason, how about epistomological 'truth', does that work. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology ... that's b/c science isnt' used to prove math or logic, its' the other way around, math and logic are used to prove, or more aptly support science.>>
Eureka! Exactly! That’s what I’ve been trying to communicate. Truth itself exists outside of the scientific method as do myriads of other elements used to support science, all of which cannot be falsified or proven by science. That being the case, how we know and how we know that we know (epistemology) cannot be so narrowly defined to only allow for scientifically falsifiable statements. Your requirement that God bow to this, therefore, as proof of His existence is invalid because of this fact. This is what I and other believers have been saying to you. Although I believe you can see him with your microscope if you remove the naturalist-only glasses (e.g. many scientists have come to Him in this way), other tests for His existence can be used that are valid (legal tests, forensic science, philosophical/logical thought, etc.)
Peace.
"There are individuals born witout the full circle and they usually end up with neurovascular accidents of some sort."
well, why then didn't the designer do a better job in engineering gene protein response during embryotic development of this circle? thats a good question the designer must explain. after all, if it's smart enough to make the Circle, you'd think he'd find enough time to ensure the developmental build process doesn't negate his hard work.
'And testis. All have very good design model reasons for doing what they do.'
how is it a 'good design' to have the testis drop at all which can lead to hernias? Some mammals, like elephants have internal testis and they do quite fine, so its not all about body heat. one would think that leaving the family jewls in a more secure place would make more sense, nope let em dangle in the wind so they can get cut, yanked, torn, etc. and risk the reproductivity of the host. looooks like swell design to me!
And the human eye, have you ever considered how utterly blind we are to the entire light spectrum? the visable light spectrum is minute in relation to this entire spectrum and many of those other forms of light would be helpfull for us to use and see, somehow the designer didn't think we find infra red, microwaves and other waves lengths worthwhile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_light
"Evolution should have gone for the simplest structure."
Well, not really. you see, evolution will tend to use 'what works just enough' so to speak, biolgoically many things are far from optimal, the organ in question need only be 'good enough' so that the host can reproduce, that is after all the key on life is, to replicate. So the organ in question, or the system (circle of Willis) needs to be at least 'good enough' for the host to pass on its genes, if it can't accomplish that much, the lienage isn't going to make it very far and likely will go extinct.
"Without the circle of Willis a good number of humans would never have made it to adulthood."
Exactly! those that had a less than 'just fit enough' satisfactory circulatory system, or 'circle of Willis' wouldn't have made it to reproductive age, let alone adulthood. They would have been 'less fit' than their rivals who had those systems which worked slightly better allowign them to out reproduce them.
"Aside from genetic accidents, we have no human anatomical example of any transition from a non circle of Willis to a partial, to a full circle of Willis structure"
and where exactly would we even find such a 'non circle of Willis to partial, to full', these are biological and living tisses, and would degrade and not fossilize so they couldn't be found in the first place.
"I just read your post that talked about the least complex answer."
I never even bothered to retort to you vascular example, learn to read. I never said it wasn't complex or simple. I noted it, but didn't reply on it, instead I replied on how the eye and male testis don't show omniscient wise design or forthought and so one must explain not just the vascular system, as you did, but the entire body and all its parts with their relative pluses and minuses for 'good design'. If you want to ignore all the instances of bad design, then you're not being objective in the first place so why bother?
"The sun exists. Do we have to falsify it inorder to believe it? "
Ha, ha, ha. you're not from around here are ya boy? I mean, you're not familar with the Science much are you?
Simply put no, we don't have to falsify the existence of the sun, namely b/c its existence is 'self evident' and we have empirical evidence and tests to conlclude its existence. What its made up of, how it moves if at all and other things must be falsifiable and these are and the deeper questions are which require it.
Let me change the perspective here. we know the earth exists, well, b/c we're here standing on it (again we'd call this observation self evident), but withoiut prior knowledge of the past miillenia and technology the nature of the earth (flat like a coin vs sperical) is what we couldn't be sure of b/c well it's not self evident from our vantage point. Equally hard to know from out vantage point and without prior knowledge and technology is if the earth revolves around the sun, or vice versa. So, in each example we have 2 hypotheses, A) the earth is flat like a coin, or B) it's sperical like a ball, or A) the earth revovles around the sun or B) teh sun revolves around the earth. obviously in both situations both A and B cannot be true both at the same time, so the facts will lead to only one conclusion.
Now, based on obersvervations, evidence and testing we find the earth to be spherical and that it revolves around the sun. but such 'theories' are continually tested as new technology allows for greater understanding and observations, case an point, when NASA sent men to outer space. were we to find that the earth wasn't round, but something else, the new data would have to be introduced and tested to see how it fit, this is of course only a hypothetical example, but you get the idea.
Agent Orange, "True enough, "The sun exists. Do we have to falsify it inorder to believe it?
Agent Orange, The least complex answer for the vascular structure to feed the brain would not include the circle of Willis. I just read your post that talked about the least complex answer. That would have sent a single artery to each part of the brain. least complex unless you have a designer who knows what the outcome will be without the circle. runningdoc
Agent Orange, Not so fast pardner!
You asked for something in science that could be falsifiable and could be predictedfrom an ID model instead of an evolutionary model.
The Circle of willis fits the ID model. Evolution should have gone for the simplest structure. Without the circle of Willis a good number of humans would never have made it to adulthood.
Aside from genetic accidents, we have no human anatomical example of any transition from a non circle of Willis to a partial, to a full circle of Willis structure. This points to a design by someone who knew what the catasrophic outcome would be without it. There are individuals born witout the full circle and they usually end up with neurovascular accidents of some sort.
So, You could predict that a designer would put that circle in from an ID model.
Answer that I will talk about eyeballs eventually. Now we are on my playground.
And testis. All have very good design model reasons for doing what they do.
adios, runnigdoc
"Do you even know what that was?"
yup, it's the stuff we dropped on the VC back in vietnam, I'll admit it's not the most original but Ithink my name is fitting as it exemplifies how generally my arguements engulf the opposition and utterly bankrupt them from then on. oh yes, the poor lady, and the miracle, both I will rerot on later.
Agent Orange-
First, my what a terrible name. Agent Orange? Do you even know what that was? It was a terrible substance that caused disease and birth defects. Second, look up Our Lady of Guadalupe. The more scientists go into it, the more they find that they cannot explain. Part of her is done in oil. Part is done in watercolor. Ask any hisorian and they will tell you that this is impossible to do. Before they painted something, the Indians would put chemicals on the thing they were painting. If they were using watercolor, they would have a specific chemical for that, if they were using oils they would have a specific chemical for that. It is impossible to apply both chemicals, they had to do it ALL in one type of paint. Explain how hundreds of thousands of indians were converted within one week! You can't. They have found unkown substances on the Lady of Guadalupe portrait... unexplainable. Also check up on the Miracle of the Sun. Also unexplainable... really...
man, I had a buch of spelling errors...=)
"Permit”… Interesting word."
Scientific method, read up on it and it becomes obviously why supernatural agents aren't allowed to be used to explain something in a scientific manner. science is can't control how, or if, or when a supernatural agent were to act in testing and therefore any invovled testing becoems pointless when one assumed god is invovled.
So why not include god into the mix you ask? Easy. in all instances, the least complex and most NATURAL explanation is always the right one, if it makes you feel better than rainbows are caused by god instead of the angle of light refraction on water, then so be it, but such a 'god dun it' hypothesis is entirely unfounded for the nature of rainbows. but back in the 1500's before enough research was done, rainbows, as in the bible, were credited directly as the work of god. look at them, how does the colors 'know' how to self organize in such a manner, but they don't it's just light bouncing off of water, nothing more.
"No permission there for sure."
And it ALL comes down to falsifiabiltiy. take for instance the evidence for human chromosome 2 fusion, or ERV's, if one has a hypothesis that 'god dun it that way' such a hypothesis can't possibly be falsified as in the end the god could have fused however many chromosomes anyway they wanted. This is why 'god did this, that, and that over there' has never worked in any equation ever, nor has it explained anything b/c it doesn't strip away geniune ignorance on the matter, and truly that is the heart of the issue and that is what science is all about.
runningdoc,
ok, you're marveling over the human circulartory system, that's great, really it is, but what do you make of the human eye? I mean, it's wired backwards requiring the brain to flip the image, while octopuses have very similar eyes and don't have to do this, and we have a blind spot which the brain also compenstates for. and the male testis which durring pubery have to descend and sometimes results in hernias, well you get the point.
:"Agent, is there anything true enough that it does not need to be falsifiable in order to accept it? "
'true enough'.....uhhhh, mkaaya, you're gonna have to explain what you mean by that one, but for something to be considered scientific it by definition must undergo the scientific method which invovles being falsifiable, so in the end if it isn't, it's not science.
"Do all true things have to be able to be proven false in order to be true? "
To be falsifiable and scientific they do.
", you can’t answer a simple question: which is more plausible and believable:
- a “super” (as you call it) ET or a Creator?"
In our position, relative to the age of the Universe, we could have both. we (earthly life) could be from alien engineers who were ultimatley created by god, but alas neither are really testable, nor falsifiable and therefore not science. again, as far as plausiable, the natural one wins out.
"- Billions of little miracles needed for life or one big miracle?"
What billions of miralces? Considering life arising from natrual means doesn't invovle any miracles, as....it's all natural. if it were supernatrual it would invoke miracles. Matter doesn't act in a pureposeless manner, it acts according to fundimental laws, one could say there was purpose from the get go of the inception of the universe.
"No disrespect, but is that really the best answer you can come up with?"
Given the magnitude of the universe, it's at least a possibile consideration, is it not? were we to find that we were the only solar system ever then that would narror the odds mightly.
"can you provide us with one scientific test that offers a definition of truth itself or something that shows us there really is such a thing?"
It's not derived from science, but from logic/reason, how about epistomological 'truth', does that work. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
" I only said you can’t use science to prove/disprove them and you haven’t been able to counter that charge."
that's b/c science isnt' used to prove math or logic, its' the other way around, math and logic are used to prove, or more aptly support science. think about it =)
agentorange:
For all your rhetoric, you can’t answer a simple question: which is more plausible and believable:
- a “super” (as you call it) ET or a Creator?
- Billions of little miracles needed for life or one big miracle?
- Purposeless, meaningless, impersonal, random forces creating beings obsessed with purpose, meaning, full of personality and desiring order or a Cause that embodies all of the characteristics of its effect?
Your only response thus far: “Given the age of the Universe, the sheer volume of 100’s of billions of galaxies, each of them with 100’s of billions of stars and their many planets make it possible…” No disrespect, but is that really the best answer you can come up with?
<< Comparitively, philosophy can't hold a candle in terms of revealed truth and knowledge when compared with science. >>
Really? Starting from square one, can you provide us with one scientific test that offers a definition of truth itself or something that shows us there really is such a thing?
<< Show such presumptions like predicate logic, maths to be utterly wrong, dissatisfactory of our use >>
I didn’t say the presuppositional underpinnings of science weren’t useful – quite the contrary. I only said you can’t use science to prove/disprove them and you haven’t been able to counter that charge.
I also want to call attention to this statement you made: “The knowledge derived from science comes from natural means and doesn’t permit the use of a supernatural one to explain things…” “Permit”… Interesting word. Kinda what the “Expelled” film talks about – contrary views of evolution not being “permitted”. It also jogged my memory of this quote from one of your compadres, Lewontin: “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” No permission there for sure.
Analyzing your arguments and insults toward those who disagree with you is interesting to watch and goes to prove the point the true belief is a matter of the *will*. And as Rick Weaver said, “Nothing good can come if the will is wrong. And to give evidence to him who loves not the truth is to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation.”
Agentorangex
Evidence of Intelligent Design.
Look at the Circle of Willis.
http://everything2.com/e2node/Circle%2520of%2520Willis
http://www.strokecenter.org/education/ais_vessels/ais048.html
http://cardiovascularsystem.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_circle_of_willis
These are short descriptions of the circle of Willis.
This is an interesting design feature for humans. The connections between The anterior cerebral, anterior communicating, Internal carotid, middle cerebral, post communicating, post cerebral and basilar arteries are reduntant. They are also life saving if blood flow below the circle is interrupted in any of its feeder arteries.
The first time a an internal carotid obstructs without the circle half of the brain is destroyed. With the redundant ant. communicating arteriies, and the posterior communiating arteries most people go right on through life without even knowing there is a problem.
The simplest form of circulation would not have included the extra reduntant arteries. They had to be present in order to prevent total hemispheric strokes.
From an engineering viewpoint, the presence of these reduntant arteries would not be the slimplest design and would indicate some forethought.
Agent, is there anything true enough that it does not need to be falsifiable in order to accept it?
Do all true things have to be able to be proven false in order to be true? I am not being flippant so please dont call me anything rude for asking. :-)
runningdoc
DannyPoo,
oh I engage with regular ID folk and discuss the issues at length with them, some of the ID folk on here have yet to show how exactly its claims are scientific in any measure, and still yet they tout it..... the closest I've gotten was an outright decry by fiat by seedplanter that indeed it was! though he negelcted to show the details on this.... needless to say my standards are a little higher than this.
Part of the reason why I ask on this board is, well, b/c according to this film there is tons of evidence for ID, its just that they are being persicuted, and I would figure some of those who watched it would like to discuss said evidence on it and why they find ID as scienctific.
::begin quote::
ID proclaims that some biological systems are IC and therefore couldn't have evolved gradually, thus impying 'god dun it'. now, how can this hypothesis be supported by certain facts and evidence we find in genetics, biology and paleontology? How can ID be used to explain evidence regarding human chromosome 2 fusion or ERV's for instance? What, a deceptive designer who makes his work 'just so happen to mirror evolutionary processes' ?
::end quote::
I wouldn't even be able to attempt to answer your questions, as I am not an expert in ID. That does not however mean there is not an answer to your questions. I would suggest you contact one of the ID proponent experts and tell us what you find.
If you haven't done that...I would ask(politely)...why not?
DannyPoo,
so lets recap...'Hhmm...well I was definately taught Abiogenesis at school. I remember distinctly'
hmmmm, sounds like you know precisely that it was taught and that you should therefore be able to explain what was taught.
'LOL, well 8th grade was a long time ago (i'm 25). I would have to concede that I do not remember it coming directly out of the textbook (that I remember).'
So, perhaps you don't quite remember.....o'well, no one is perfect. Regardless, evolutionary evidence is what has more evidence and testing behind it and its what is what is and should be taught for that reason, abiogenesis doesn't have the same level of evidence behind it, nor is it as well tested, so no an in depth analysis on it shouldn't be taught. perhaps a brief of the miller experiments and where they are at now, but it's not on par with the evidence for other sciences.
DannyPoo,
ID proclaims that some biological systems are IC and therefore couldn't have evolved gradually, thus impying 'god dun it'. now, how can this hypothesis be supported by certain facts and evidence we find in genetics, biology and paleontology? How can ID be used to explain evidence regarding human chromosome 2 fusion or ERV's for instance? What, a deceptive designer who makes his work 'just so happen to mirror evolutionary processes' ?
::begin quote::
And, what did they teach? lots of details on all the mechanisms and processes, or more or less the briefing of the Miller Urey experiments?
::end quote::
LOL, well 8th grade was a long time ago (i'm 25). I would have to concede that I do not remember it coming directly out of the textbook (that I remember). I do remember the teacher talking about Abiogenesis when discussing evolution. She should not have even discussed it however, if we apply the same standard that is applied to ID.
"Hhmm...well I was definately taught Abiogenesis at school."
And, what did they teach? lots of details on all the mechanisms and processes, or more or less the briefing of the Miller Urey experiments?
::begin quote::
No, Abiogenesis isn’t taught in public schools, they might get a brief on the Miller Urey experiments, but that’s it, its barely taught in community colleges. Abiogenesis lacks the hard evidence and conclusive facts to show it holds up to is a well-tested and supported theory much less taught in public schools.
::end quote::
Hhmm...well I was definately taught Abiogenesis at school. I remember distinctly, 8th grade, Mrs. Heck, Biology class. Anyone else here taught Abiogenesis in class? If so please post a comment.
DannyPoo
“You admit that Abiogenesis cannot be proven scientifically (at least yet). However it is taught in classroom,”
No, Abiogenesis isn’t taught in public schools, they might get a brief on the Miller Urey experiments, but that’s it, its barely taught in community colleges. Abiogenesis lacks the hard evidence and conclusive facts to show it holds up to is a well-tested and supported theory much less taught in public schools.
Evolutionary theory does however have such factual evidence along with hard empirical evidence; this is why evolutionary theory is taught in schools while Abiogenesis is not. Try not to get evolution and Abiogenesis confused.
Agentorangex,
Respectfully I feel like you are holding IDers to a double standard. You admit that Abiogenesis cannot be proven scientifically (at least yet). However it is taught in classroom, and likely you support it being taught (I do not mean to place motives over you, I am just generalizing. If you do not support Abiogenesis being taught in classrooms please let me know).
At the same time you believe that ID cannot be proven scientifically, but refuse to let it into the classroom.
1man
“How can you observe evolution when it "supposedly" takes millions of years for one mutation to take place?”
No, totally false, mutations don’t require millions of years. Every single organism has genetic mutations its parents didn’t have; you have mutations your parents didn’t have.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm
Why do you think HIV continues to stick around? hmmm, maybe it has something to do with how it has mutations according to certain drugs and its hosts immune systm, IE biologically changing over time, aka evolution.
DannyPoo
“Can Evolution scientifically verify that life came from non-life”
WHEN will the stawmen talking points stop? Evolutionary theory doesn’t describe, nor does it try to, the ORIGINS of life, but rather the DIVERSITY of life. Hence why Darwin’s book was origins on SPECIES and not origins on life. Abiogenesis is the realm of science related to the origins of life, however it too is science, but this is independent of evolutionary theory.
Respectfully, can SCIENCE show life came from non-lfie? No, not yet. But based on all other knowledge gained from science, the answer always, and I repeat emphatically always is the natural source.
Let's hear some evidence on ID and why it should be taught as science in schools. any takers?
schumacr,
“I repeat my last points that you didn’t respond to and ask you and all viewing this exchange to tell me which are more probable and reasonable, and why:”
Given the age of the Universe, the sheer volume of 100’s of billions of galaxies, each of them with 100’s of billions of stars and their many planets make it possible for life to have existed elsewhere prior to us or life on Earth, which is after all what we’re talking about.
“Lastly, must something be scientifically provable or falsifiable to be true?”
No, not necessarily, science is but a tool, which allows us to gain truer knowledge of our universe. Philosophy is another tool, however this tool isn’t nearly as useful at obtaining measured leveled of progressive certainty. Comparitively, philosophy can't hold a candle in terms of revealed truth and knowledge when compared with science. Again, I stress that what can be taught AS Science must uphold the critique of the scientific method, which ID does not.
‘“Our species has been around what, 200,000 years, and only heavily involved in science for the past few centuries.” It has?”
The existence of Homo Sapiens which I mentioned has nothing to do with philosophy, its purely based on empirical, observational evidence. Namely genetics and fossils.
“Can you scientifically prove that with operational science?”
Your question is bogus, it doesn’t matter if it’s operational or forensic, they are both in the end still Science and work according to the scientific method.
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/
“The laws of logic, existence of truth, mathematics, knowability of the external world, reliability of cognitive facilities to rightly interpret truth, etc., all are philosophical presuppositions of science’
Show such presumptions like predicate logic, maths to be utterly wrong, dissatisfactory of our use, or not worth while as another alternative better explains and you’ll have my ear, until then spare us.
‘methinks you and others try and use your definition of science (and faith in scientism) to exclude God at every turn”
No, science can’t invoke the supernatural as a means to explain something, thus the only avenue it has is a natural one, in which you find fun calling it ‘naturalism’, but this is as logical as calling science scientism. The knowledge derived from science comes from natural means and doesn’t permit the use of a supernatural one to explain things. Science doesn’t include god into explain things b/c it’s a null answer, it answers nothing. Give me a single example where ‘god made it that way’ explained something and provided more genuine knowledge in the end.
::begin quote::
Can we test in a scientific manner if an ID/god created life, much less complex biological systems? That is the crux of my question.
::end quote::
Well that's a VERY difficult thing to do, but is Absolutely a fair question to ask. This is the question that many IDers have been asking about Evolution as well. Can Evolution scientifically verify that life came from non-life. I believe the answer is No, so far at least.
bondmen:
1) Humans ARE animals. What do you think we are? Plants? Gods?
2) Evolution implies nothing regarding the existence of souls.
3) What does evolutionary theory have to do with this philosophical position? I'll tell you: nothing!
4) Biology (not Christianity) has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that concepts of human "races" are without foundation.
5) Nature isn't a struggle for existence? Maybe not for you. But what about for the cheetah or the gazelle?
6) This doesn't even warrant a response.
There are six principles embedded in Darwin’s world view that cheapen the value of human life:
1. Humans are animals. 2. There is no soul. 3. Morality is relative. 4. Humans are unequal. 5. Nature is a struggle for existence. 6. Death is an engine of progress.
more at www.creationsafaris.com/news 4-16-08
Expelled Goes Easy on Darwin-Nazi Link at http://www.cashill.com/intellig_design/expelled_goes_easy.htm
ID is not science. ..
That's funny many say the same thing about evolution......
Science starts with observations, hypotheses, and then seeks to substantiate the hypotheses with testable scenarios, predictions, and falsifiability.
How can you observe evolution when it "supposedly" takes millions of years for one mutation to take place? all the scientists who begin to deviate from "evolution" get ostricized by their peers and all of a sudden become ignorant to true science....why is this? does the fact that through science some have come to a belief in God make one disqualified from the academic position they had acheived clearly by merit?
agentorange:
Interesting what parts of my arguments you partially clipped and responded to. Ignoring that, however, here are some other thoughts/questions:
<< however bases on sheer probability, the natural one is more probable at least from a scientifically testable viewpoint >>
Really? I repeat my last points that you didn’t respond to and ask you and all viewing this exchange to tell me which are more probable and reasonable, and why:
- a “super” (as you call it) ET or the Creator?
- Billions of little miracles needed for life or one big miracle?
- Purposeless, meaningless, impersonal, random forces creating beings obsessed with purpose, meaning, full of personality and desiring order or a Cause that embodies all of the characteristics of its effect?
Lastly, must something be scientifically provable or falsifiable to be true? If so, then I wonder about all the philosophical statements you make out here such as: “Our species has been around what, 200,000 years, and only heavily involved in science for the past few centuries.” It has? Can you scientifically prove that with operational science? If not, why should I listen to you? It seems you rely a lot on views of history, philosophy, forensic science, and other such things to back up your claims. That being the case, why make the philosophical claim that God must submit to operational science to be verified?
Science is fine, but not scientism. Scientism ignores the fact that the underlying presuppositions necessary to practice science can’t be defended scientifically. The laws of logic, existence of truth, mathematics, knowability of the external world, reliability of cognitive facilities to rightly interpret truth, etc., all are philosophical presuppositions of science.
Like it or not, true and rationally justified beliefs exist outside of operational science. Just as you claim that ID tries to massage the definition of science to include God, methinks you and others try and use your definition of science (and faith in scientism) to exclude God at every turn.
ID is not science. Science starts with observations, hypotheses, and then seeks to substantiate the hypotheses with testable scenarios, predictions, and falsifiability.
Creationists have been trying for decades to get public schools and universities to give "equal time" to creationism. The most recent tact is to dress it up as "intelligent design" and it was shot down at the Dover trial when it was proven (by a Christian biologist, Ken Miller) to be nothing more than creationism without a direct reference to "god". In fact, the intelligent design manifesto "Of Pandas and People" was originally written with direct references to God, and then edited to replace God with Intelligent Designer; this evidence was also presented in the Dover trial.
Moreover, the "persecuted scientists" who were presented in Expelled have all been debunked. One of them completely side-stepped the peer review process in order to get his ID paper published! Another was an unpaid volunteer. More details can be found at expelledexposed.com.
Stein's movie purports to be about academic freedom; but it fallaciously equates evolution with eugenics and implies that atheism leads to atrocity, which couldn't be further from the truth. Expelled is the worst example of misinformation, outright lies, and pandering propaganda.
“What would be entirely wrong with teaching intelligent design in the classroom?”
Show it’s science and I have no problem with teaching it as science, but as it is now, it’s like quasi philosophy and should be taught as such and not taught as science.
“Would you explain to me the definition of falsifiable?”
Very loosely and basically, it implies that any given proposition in our universe (say the flatness or roundness of our Earth) is equally able to be shown, based on evidence, to be either true or false. An unfalsifiable proposition would involve a claim in which one end of the spectrum couldn’t be shown true or false via evidence. An example would be explaining how something is formed and then appealing to something (ID/god) which is supernatural and not empirically scientifically testable and therefore not falsifiable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Agent Orange, What would be entirely wrong with teaching intelligent design in the classroom?
Would you explain to me the definition of falsifiable? Might help me to understand where you are coming from on some of this.
Thank you, runningdoc
Runningdoc,
Additionally, no ID proponents (save for perhaps Dembski and Behe) proclaim openly who the designer is and they do this so they can potentially teach it in schools. The second they admit ID = god and the Abrahamic Christian god at that, they loose any chance of teaching it in the public schools which is ultimately part of their ‘wedge strategy’. So, you see they can’t openly admit who or what the designer is, as to do so would make it openly seen as religion, which is what it is anyway.
So, since they can’t define the details of the designer, the designer can’t be critiqued and therefore this aspect can’t be scientifically studied which makes it unfalsifiable, again making it not science. Case and point, the evidence for Human chromosome 2 fusion, how’d the designer do it, is such a explanation of the designer doing it falsifiable, testable, etc.?
"Not unseen. John 1:14. The Word (Jesus Christ) became flesh and dwelt among us.
Not Unheard. John 1:1 In the beginning was the word."
I am not refering to jesus in the flesh, or some bible verse, but rather how ID touts things like IC (Ireducible Complexity) and how the designer did it, and testing such hypothesis' of a supernatrual agent aren't scientifcally falsifiable, that is what I am saying. Can we test in a scientific manner if an ID/god created life, much less complex biological systems? That is the crux of my question.
Hi Ifeelfine72, I bent over last week and pulled a dandelion and hurt my back. I went and tried to run, and ended up running the 5k instead of the 13.1miles. The first mile my legs just acted like they did not want to work. The last 2 miles things were better. My back is improving and I will tune up for another 13miler in september.
Agent Orange. "After all, since ID appeals to a supernatural, un seen, un heard designer"
Not unseen. John 1:14. The Word (Jesus Christ) became flesh and dwelt among us.
Not Unheard. John 1:1 In the beginning was the word.
adios, runningdoc
schumacr
“So you’re using an analogy of one form of intelligence (us) engineering something such as a virus as proof/plausible theory that another form of intelligence engineered us;’
Yes, but notice the distinction between aliens (natural) and god (supernatural) and so far neither are well supported hypothesizes, however bases on sheer probability, the natural one is more probable at least from a scientifically testable viewpoint.
“And it’s something that can be recognized by thinking people and accepted without needing to be falsifiable from a scientific standpoint”
I don’t see how ID, either using the alien or god route are falsifiable, if they are, do tell.
“I will say, you certainly have a lot of ‘faith’ there.”
It takes faith to review the age of the universe (13.7 billion years) and consider alien engineers a possible natural explanation for earth life origins, how? Our species has been around what, 200,000 years, and only heavily involved in science for the past few centuries. Perhaps an alien species which has existed for many millions of years would have a more advanced understanding of biology and allows them to engineer life, that is all I am saying.
“It’s even more interesting to me because you lovingly point to the Dover trials as one of evolution’s shining moments in the courts,’
Dover was only the recent thumping of creationism in courts, there are nearly a dozen such national court cases nationally, never mind all the local state ones.
“If everything that begins must have a cause, then who/what engineered the aliens that seeded our earth?”
Super aliens, natural processes, or super natural god. It comes down to what is ‘scientifically testable’ and the supernatural isn’t, there is the distinction. Keep in mind, we are only talking about the origins of life on Earth, and not life ultimately. Life on earth could have originated via aliens, while still ultimately initial life could have arose via natural forces or perhaps a super natural one. I am looking for the scientific answers for earthly life origins, and appealing isntantly to 'god dun it' doesn't explain anything in detail, it just decries by fiat that it is and attempts to shut the case close to avoid further closer inspection.
dws689
“Just produce one example of a new functional element of a life form with more than, say, 5 new complex proteins, which is produced in the lab by random processes, and ID is forever falsified.”
Why is 5 the limit? After all, since ID appeals to a supernatural, un seen, un heard designer, after we find life which formed 5 new complex proteins, then they can retort by asking for 6,7,8 and so on. This is continual setting the bar higher and higher still removes it from being falsified, otherwise you’d ask for just a single new complex protein, a only a few, but you know we’ve already observed that. Again, this is appealing to gaps and again not falsifiable.
“2) Evolutionary origin of life theories are not falsifiable”
Evolutionary theory doesn’t explain the origins of life, but the diversity of life.
runningdoc: I forgot to ask you, how did you do in your marathon last week or the week before? I am running a 25K this weekend.
bcoontz: Don't brush off evolution like that. Folks ask for evidence, claim its not true, etc and when people cite evidence, you tell them not to present it?
While I am no Phd in anything, the one thing that I do know is that the topic of ERVs is certainly too complex to be addressed in this forum. If anyone is genuinely disturbed enough about this topic to see the ID or creationist response, I would suggest going to www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/microbe-forum.pdf
And there are others as well.
It is interesting to watch some of you call each other names on "Christian Post.com" I know that the Post is not responsible for your behavior, but then you should be!
Without identifying each of you, I want to say shame on all of you who resort to name calling.
Christian posters who believe in evolution and those who do not ought to conduct the behavior according to the scriptures.
2timothy 2:24-26. Look it up and read it. Too big to post entirely, but it starts by saying the "Lord's bondservant must be kind to all,able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance and they may come to their senses, etc.
Non Christians who like to post on this site should be bound by good manners. Calling people names or making light of their credentials does not make your argument any stronger. It simply makes it appear that someone should mentor you on the subject of manners. In the 2 Tim quote there is a key to having influence with others. Able to teach. You can either argue with someone( which is most of the content in these posts) or you can teach. You cannot do both.
Hey Agent orange, We can play with recombinent DNA, but we cannot make it de novo.
CS Lewis spent part of his life trying to prove there was no God. It is a dangerous business. Usually results in intelligent men or women becoming Christians.
Hey DWS689, thank you for clarifying falsifiability.
Charles D Hodges Jr MD, runningdoc
dws689 - A PhD in microbiology? Maybe you'd like to answer AgentOrange's ERV question. Star took a swing at it but I guess God didn't give her the answer yet.
agentorangex:
<<Is this ‘little green men’ a possible or plausible explanation for earth origins? Yes, it is. As you might not know, we humans are on our way to genetically engineering life; we’ve already synthetically created viruses and almost are done with bacteria …Dawkins and those like him, find the plausibility of ‘how life got here’ via the NATURAL ID (little green men) more likely, as when compared to a supernatural explanation.>>
So you’re using an analogy of one form of intelligence (us) engineering something such as a virus as proof/plausible theory that another form of intelligence engineered us. And it’s an intelligence that is more ‘advanced’ than us that starts things off. And it’s something that can be recognized by thinking people and accepted without needing to be falsifiable from a scientific standpoint. Interesting concept… Design by intelligence or ‘intelligent design’. Hasn’t someone coined that phrase already?
I will say, you certainly have a lot of ‘faith’ there. It’s even more interesting to me because you lovingly point to the Dover trials as one of evolution’s shining moments in the courts, and it was one of the pro-evolution lawyers who mockingly said that if we’re going to accept God as an option for the origin of life then we also need to believe in UFO’s.
Of course, the problem with the alien engineering proposal is the issue of infinite regress. If everything that begins must have a cause, then who/what engineered the aliens that seeded our earth? Your analogy breaks down because, at some point, your intelligent engineering theory of aliens engineering us must be connected to a non-intelligent, random, purposeless, meaningless cause that ‘created’ the first set of aliens.
ET is plausible (and desirable), but a Creator preposterous? Billions of little miracles needed for life vs. one big miracle? Purposeless, meaningless, impersonal, random forces creating beings obsessed with purpose, meaning, full of personality and desiring order vs. a cause that embodies all of the characteristics of its effect.
And you feel justified at casting slurs and insults at the Christians on this board?
i love it when people say that evolution or ID can't be falsified because it makes me chuckle. The data may be there on either side, but it is the interpretation of the data that makes it false, and yes both evolution and ID can be falsified and has been falsified in the past. Remember the old saying a picture is worth a thousand words, well if you cut out part of the picture it isn't 1000 words anymore....
Who cares how much money Expelled makes? Even if it goes on to become the highest grossing film of all time, it will still be a shameful work of propaganda.
Don't put the movie down because it isn't popular, put it down because it isn't honest.
to Dongard: did you read the article? Sicko gets all that free liberal advertising on NBS, CBS and ABC, where as Expelled doesn't, no wonder it makes way more.....
dws689,
did you buy your PhD on ebay?
1) Read The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner
2) Read Genesis: the Scientific Quest for Life's Origins by Robert Hazen
3) How do you propose to do science with an untestable hypothesis?
Getting marching orders from Eugenie Scott's center, bloggers keep saying "not falsifiable"!
1) ID is of course falsifiable. Just produce one example of a new functional element of a life form with more than, say, 5 new complex proteins, which is produced in the lab by random processes, and ID is forever falsified.
2) Evolutionary origin of life theories are not falsifiable. No matter what the lack of evidence, materialist views of evolution will demand we hold out for some new evidence to come along. Anyone who knows microbiology (which I do, with a Ph.D) knows that there are dozens of "chicken and egg" problems with the origin of life, in that there the things needed to build other things, themselves must be built by those things. That means it is impossible for the things we have now to appear by themselves. But evolutionists posit a whole set of "scaffolding" which no longer exists to explain this state of things. If there ever was a non-falsifiable theory that is it-- proposing a whole set of things which do not exist, just to save a hypothesis.
3) Popperian falsifiablility has long been dead as a criterion of whether something is scientific. No single experiment has enough certainty to overturn well-established theories.
Song2vs4: Obviously you can have a very intelligent conversation with AgentOrange, because, well, he's very intelligent. And he's right - not about you being a "'tard" - but about ID not being science because for one thing it's not falsifiable. No one has ever answered his question on this post about ID being falsifiable. I guess the posters here are only interested in knocking the softballs out of the park and not in answering some of the harder questions about your faith.
ahhhh.....WAaaaaaaawwwww. look Song, if people on here actually provided falsifiable evidence for neo-creationism/ID I wouldn't have to continue to ask the same rhetorical questions on it. Alas they do not and so here we are. Would you like to be the 1st? The reason why I do write here is I'd like to see the evidence laid bear and have a stimulating discussion on the actual evidence, but again it's quite hard to get that to happen when no one from the other side who touts ID can provide the evidence for it.
Why do any of you converse with agentorangex??? If you have been reading these posts for any length of time you would know you cannot have an intelligent conversation with him. Furthermore, the only reason he writes is to insult and incite, not for real dialog. May I suggest ignoring him and his posts?
agentorangex, I think I'm starting to agree with DannyPoo's post concerning you. Feel free to continue looking for your debate, I have just one suggestion: don't call people names if you really want to talk about it. Later, I got to do eat dinner!
“Why do you attack others and call them names for voicing their thoughts about ID?”
I called them tards for attending the movie and thinking it contains science, I don’t recall name calling them for voicing anything following it, namely b/c I’ve yet to hear anything scientific from the film or thosse who watched it. i've asked on here to hear some falsifiable evidence for ID, so far, nada.
“The topic again, is not Darwin v ID”
Actually the topic can be whatever we want it to be, it’s a blog after all. The article relates to expelled which is a film touting ID, so lets hear the evidence for ID and how its falsifiable already.
“The topic is why are you and many other pro Darwin thinkers are so hostile when confronted with opposing viewpoints that concern ID”
I want falsifiable, well tested and critiqued and supported evidence for ID and those who tout ID (like on here) seem to rarely offer it and consequently I resort to calling out the fraudsters for what they tout (pseudo-science) and what they are for it (tards). The only reason you’d prefer to discuss this instead of the evidence on ID is b/c it’s utterly lacking, even the founder Phillips readily admits to this. So, here’s your chance, lets hear the falsifiable evidence for ID.
"I think those who think expelled is filled with science are tards, need I say more?"
Um, yes, you do. Why do you attack others and call them names for voicing their thoughts about ID? Simply disagreeing or holding an alternative viewpoint is not justification for calling someone names, regardless of who is right or wrong The topic again, is not Darwin v ID. The topic is why are you and many other pro Darwin thinkers are so hostile when confronted with opposing viewpoints that concern ID.
"Please tell me why you decided to do this,"
I think those who think expelled is filled with science are tards, need I say more?
"I think a discussion of that is far more interesting than us all tossing our arguments back and forth as to why we think Darwin or ID is a farce."
Translation: 'I can't think of any evidence for ID, so lets change the topic so we don't have to discuss the lacking evidence for ID.' About right? If not, answer away with the falsifiable evidence regarding ID.
agentorangex Why did you decide to use the word 'tard' to describe people who see this movie? Your negative and hateful attitude towards ID is the exact phenomenon this movie is trying to explore. Please tell me why you decided to do this, I think a discussion of that is far more interesting than us all tossing our arguments back and forth as to why we think Darwin or ID is a farce.
DannyPoo,
All I read from yours is, ' I can't find evidence for ID, o'well, I'll just ridicule my opponet and attack him and not his message'.
Not mad at all, just waiting for some actual evidence for the neo-creationist trojan horse, aka ID. Let's hear how it;s falsifiable and therefore scientific.
I really don't want to be drawn into a ID v. Darwin debate, I don't think that was the point of this article or the movie.
I think Expelled was more about taking a look at how pro ID individuals are ridiculed and demeaned for their views and how nearly every explanation of the origin of life is tolerated in mainstream society except any views that advocate some level of intelligent design playing a role in the process. (Please, anyone who has seen the movie, please correct me if I am wrong in this statement, but that is the impression I got from the trailer and from reading about this movie online).
And after several weeks for a film of any genre to be "13th highest grossing" in its respective area is astounding. Sure, it's no Star Wars, but be fair and compare apples to apples. This film is having an impact and a lot of people are interested in watching it.
agentorangex,
All I read was "Blah blah blah, i'm mad this movie is out".
DannyPoo,
quit deluding yourself. 3 weeks, and only 6.6 million isn't very good, its horrid, regardless if its a documentary genre or not. Regardless of the tards who attend it, I am anxious to hear some geniune ID evidence and how its scientific.
If this is the 13th highest grossing documentary, and it's only been out..what a week or two? When this hits dvd's and christians and theists buy it up...i'd expect this to hit the top 5
Davebenham,
So you’re a fan of ID, please tell us, how is this hypothesis falsifiable and therefore scientific? If you don’t want to, I’ll take anyone’s input on the matter. I’ve asked it plenty of times and haven’t had any takers. Seedplanter decried by fiat that its falsifiable, but neglected to mention any details on how.
Surely a person who’s huddled themselves with all the latest evidence for ID can demonstrate how its scientific and has intrinsic science value.
“warms my heart to learn that Expelled is doing so well at the box office”
Are you delusional? How is 6.6 million in 3 weeks ‘well’ by any measure? It doesn't matter if it's a documentrary or not, a good film will recieve good attendance. Oh I know, the spin Dr’s out there will next blame the sagging economy as a justification for such a low amount.
Jerry 2
With respect the only flat earther commenting here is you. Christians were burnt at the stake, True Christians never burnt anyone to death, (I know that will be debated) but what ever so called Christians have done their Atheist neighbours have truly out done them, so again may I say Jerry 2 with all the true love I can muster get a life.
After years of experiencing first hand hatred and ridicule for my views on ID, I can't wait to see this movie. It warms my heart to learn that Expelled is doing so well at the box office.
"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." Matt 10:22
Bored, it's like de ja vue all over again..........
I love how this guy complains that the film didn't get publicity on big shows like nbc, abc, cbs.. and yet his only reports and comments are to Christian newspapers... Hmm.. maybe because those networks would seriously take into consideration a film that explores academic freedom.. but obviously, this film was made in the most biased way. It's content.. purpose.. producers.. all wrong and certainly not in a scholastic manner. The holocaust was not a product of Darwinism thinking.. Hitler purposely tried to rid the world of Jewish people.. not through natural selection. Any REAL academic professor would come to that conclusion. So, don't complain Mathis. Plus, any producer doing his OWN polling.. how much more will be continue to think himself a real 'Michael Moore' type documenter.. pshh
14 lines of evidence that support an old earth/universe:
1. Radio Carbon dating 2. light coimg from stars 3. Plate tectonics 4. Coral Reefs 5. Loess deposits 6. Dendrochronology 7. Varves 8. Helioseismology 9. Meteor Impacts 10. Ice Ages(glaciers) 11. Coal 12. Salt deposits (like in Utah) 13. Grand Canyon 14. Ice Cores
These are just a few. Some claim these were created in Situ to test our faith. Then maybe Zeus created the bible to test our gullibility.
1 Corinthians 1:18
Jerry2
As you very well know I am a YEC. You can call me stupid, ignorant, uneducated, lacking in original ideas, and a hick all you want. You can even laught at me and ridicule me all you want. I don't care. I am secure in who I am in Christ Jesus.
Jerry2
We are still getting the same ole stuff you always mouth off.
When are you going to come up with some original ideas?
Somebody asked "Do biologists who believe in intelligent design deserved to be burned at the stake or just fired along with mathematicians who cant add?"
Only Christians have a history of burning people alive. Normal people don't do that.
Intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design is a childish belief in magic.
Any biologist who invokes intelligent design is invoking magic. Any biologist who invokes magic is not doing science. Magic is a childish idea. Even religious scientists know magic is not scientific.
A biologist who invokes magic to explain natural processes is incompetent and deserves to be ridiculed and fired.
The producers of the anti-science propaganda movie Expelled are professional liars.
For more information google "Expelled Exposed".
The flat-earthers here need to watch this TV program on the History Channel:
The new series EVOLVE traces the history of the key innovations that have driven nature's evolutionary arms race from the dawn of life to today, from the anatomical (eyes, jaws, and body armor) to the behavioral (movement, communication, and sex). This 13-part series will deftly blend spectacular live-action natural history sequences, CGI, epic docudrama, and experimental science to illustrate our and our fellow species' eternal struggle for survival on earth.
PREMIERE: Tuesday, June 17 at 10pm/2am ET/PT
LENGTH: 2 hours
REPEATS: Sunday, June 22 at 11pm/3am ET/PT
PRODUCED BY: Optomen Productions, Inc.
See this for more information: http://tinyurl.com/3usop2
Christians are constantly trying to suppress and/or dumb down science education in public schools. Let's see if the Christians can suppress the teaching of evolution on the History Channel.
Give it up creationists. Everyone laughs at your ignorance and your fear of reality.
Runningdoc
I’d sure wish you’d reply to those vid links I gave earlier, I know I referenced them earlier to you, but I wanted some feedback from you.
“buy Priviledged Planet. …..it has lots of facts that point to a designer with a plan.”
Seen it on Youtube and elsewhere and its rebuttals by those critical of it Lots of facts that point to a design with a plan…..ok, what’s the BIG plan in having black holes existing? you think of all the 100's of billions of galaxies this is the only 'privaledged planet? are you serious?
“Do biologists who believe in intelligent design deserved to be burned at the stake or just fired along with mathematicians who cant add?”
What are you talking about burning at the stake? The guy from the Smithsonian wasn’t even employed there, he was a VOULENTEER. Why don’t you find the firing of Chris Comer, an evolution teacher who was fired an issue?
“Do federal Judges really know all there is to know about truth and the origin of life?”
Total non-sequitor. Of course judges don’t know, not even those in the field know, yet. Besides, a judge’s work doesn’t revolve around biology and its origins, but on law and how it works.
“Unless you are Michael Moore 6 million is a big deal for a documentary film.”
Right, it will be a nice piece of coin, but once the lawsuits are finalized, it wont be so much. How can you spin that this movie is a huge success....oh I klnow, use big bullet words like 'skyrocketed' , 'astounding' and then follow it up with claiming 13th place (wow huge sucess!) and then lastly compare your film to the biggest grossing documentray of all time for some self pitty.
,
“In other words, little green men who are smarter than us are responsible for all of humanity!”
Is this ‘little green men’ a possible or plausible explanation for earth origins? Yes, it is. As you might not know, we humans are on our way to genetically engineering life; we’ve already synthetically created viruses and almost are done with bacteria. Therefore the possibility of another higher intelligence natural life form, more advanced than us, (say perhaps by a million years, a million years isn’t much in a 13.7 billion year old universe BTW) which has been around for much, much longer, becomes a possible explanation for ‘where/how life originated on earth’. Is such a hypothesis scientifically testable? No, not really and nor is the super natural variety.
Dawkins and those like him, find the plausibility of ‘how life got here’ via the NATURAL ID (little green men) more likely, as when compared to a supernatural explanation.
“as Dr. Mastropaolo says, "Evolutionists have no scientific evidence. That is the reason they do not want to debate”
Yep, no scientific evidence, anywhere. What are these then?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
‘Dr. Mastropaolo searched the literature and could not find any record that Dr. Dawkins has ever published a peer-reviewed article in support of evolution”
Right, never mind all those books Dawkins published on evolutionary biology in the past 30+ years.
AgentOrange, Rent or buy Priviledged Planet. I think the fellow from Iowa State did the DVD and it has lots of facts that point to a designer with a plan.
Dear Paul Burnett, Do biologists who believe in intelligent design deserved to be burned at the stake or just fired along with mathematicians who cant add? Do federal Judges really know all there is to know about truth and the origin of life? There are lots of good explanations for how a canyon is formed starting with the way a canyon was dug out in a few hours after a dam formed by a mud and and ash gave way. The problem is that some people only want their "facts" to be considered correct even when a darwinian 2 plus 2 equals 5.
Again folks, the truth will set people free. Is not education supposed to be about looking for the truth, not suppressing or censoring the search for it?
PS people are still going to see Expelled. Unless you are Michael Moore 6 million is a big deal for a documentary film.
During my years exposing evolutionism extremism I have come in contact with several of the Darwinian disciples (such as Scott and Myers) who appear in the film. I have witnessed, first hand, their deceit and hostility. Richard Dawkins is arguably the eminent evangelist of atheism and evolutionism in the world.
In 2002, I presented the Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo "Life Science Prize" challenge (lifescienceprize.org) to Dr. Dawkins. Dr. Dawkins and I exchanged some e-mails, and after he realized he had been cornered he published an intended face-saving article "Why I Won't Debate Creationists" in the Winter 2002/03 edition of the misnamed Free Inquiry magazine. Free (sic) Inquiry would not publish Mastropaolo's and my rebuttal to the Dawkins diatribe.
Evolutionists are not going to allow honest and open discussion of the immense flaws in evolutionism because, as Dr. Mastropaolo says, "Evolutionists have no scientific evidence. That is the reason they do not want to debate. Without evidence, they can't win unless they fix the jury. Given an honest judge or jury, they would make of themselves a laughingstock."
Judging from the audience guffaws, that is exactly what happened to Dr. Dawkins during the closing scenes in "EXPELLED." Indiana Jones is fiction, but Dawkins and his ilk actually believe that life on Earth could have come from higher intelligence from other galaxies. In other words, little green men who are smarter than us are responsible for all of humanity!
Dr. Mastropaolo searched the literature and could not find any record that Dr. Dawkins has ever published a peer-reviewed article in support of evolution. This led Mastropaolo to refer to Dawkins aptly as a "quack essayist of a 2,500-year-old pagan religion that masquerades as science."
Dawkins and others exposed in "EXPELLED" mandate that the hallucination of evolutionism be forced upon public school children. Parents who want an honest and open education for their children will not get it in the public schools because scientific truth has been expelled.
runningdoc,
ID might not be the typical 6 day creationist stance, however the reason why they no longer argue from this archaic view is due to it being struck down in court in 1987 and consequently not legally permissible to teach in public schools. So, instead of giving up, the creationists have tossed all the biblical rhetoric so they can attempt to have it taught as science. Only one problem, where is the evidence which is tested and supports the claims of the ID folk?
you might think it's a great movie, but the finacial numbers show a different story. the producers can tout it as being 'over the top' sucess, but rotten tomatoes and other review sites show its not doing so well nationally, nevermind the finacial aspects.
To say ”Expelled is primarily concerned with getting the facts to audiences without bias or prejudice” is disingenuous. "It’s also true that the theory lends itself to justify atheism, abortion, euthanasia, and eugenics” –as Stein points out. Here is another quote from Mr. Stein, “Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people- Quote from Ben Stein.
Basically, Expelled tarnishes all Darwinist and evolutionists as maniacal murderers responsible for the worst atrocities of man. Linking Hitler and Darwinism is basically a specious argument, after all how many Christian Germans prayed to God that Hitler would triumph? Should we equate Christianity with the Nazis too? That's stupid and simplistic, right? Or do we just ignore the previous two thousand years of anti-Semitism in Europe and assume it had it had no impact on the holocaust or do we blame all Christians for the camps? Again, that's a simplistic answer.
To quote the Anti-Defamation League: “The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness. Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.”
I believe that you can be a Christian and a Darwinist, too. To me, one is science and the other is faith and they each have their place in life, one in a class room, the other in a church. If ID is truly a valid scientific theory then win the debate within the scientific journals through peer review not in the court of public opinion (and please don't give me that nonsense that the ID proponents lost their jobs, that was basically a Michael Moore liberty if I ever saw one.) This is how science advances and why should the mechanism change just because proponents of ID have lost the debate years ago? This is not about free speech, this is about science. To date, the arguments of irreducible complexity are not enough to allow ID to stand as a valid scientific theory. And even if it was what can you do with it as theory? What predictive models will come from ID other than to ask us to marvel at god’s handiwork?
Erik John Bertel
Author of Flores Girl: The Children God Forgot and MillenniumWriting.com Blog
Intelligent design creationism, like Peter, denies God, as well as Adam and Eve, Noah and "his" Flood, and all other parts of the Genesis story - for political expediency. The inane claims of intelligent design creationism are neither good science (no theory, no hypothesis, no definition in the "Expelled" movie) nor good religion (they took out all the good parts trying to fool the courts and school boards that it's not religion). What's left is a pitiful hermaphrodite, neither fish nor fowl.
And yes, biologists who support intelligent design creationism over evolution ARE "expelled," just as doctors who support the Demonic-Possession theory of medicine are 'expelled," just as mathematicians who support 2+2=3 are" expelled," just as geologists who support a 6,000-year-old Earth and a 4,000-year-old Grand Canyon are "expelled." Get the picture? As the Dover Fedewral trial judge ruled in 2005, intelligent design creationism has much more to do with religion than science.
And the film has earned an astounding $6.6 million after being in theaters 3 weeks - "astounding" is certainly the word, as the producers had predicted $12 to $15 million.
Please look at http://www.expelledexposed.com to see refutations of the non-stop lies in "Expelled."
Expelled is a great movie. It is not an argument for "the righteous right" or even creation. It examines that fact that individuals who are looking for facts about the origin of life in an intelligent design framework are being persecuted by the true darwinian believers. This persecution includes censorship, denial of tenure, and firing. In most "open minded" graduate science programs, a student who admits to believing that there could be an intelligent designer will not make it through a Phd program.
That is what the movie is about. I am a 6 day creationist physician/scientist and the movie helped me understand that intellient design is not about creationism which as one writer said yesterday is about Biblical inerrancy.(to which I also ascribe) The really good thing about intelligent design is that it has all kinds of people looking for facts about the origin of life. You do not have to be Christian or a creationist to want to know where and how life started. From my viewpoint, it is good to see people looking for the facts/truth. Jesus said that knowing the truth can set men free. I think that when people look for facts about the origin of life and not darwinian opinions, they eventually find God.
The danger of the current darwinian political correctness is that people quit looking for facts.