Many of you have probably seen or at least heard of Ben Stein’s documentary film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The film tackles allegations of suppressed academic freedom within American universities and attempts to demonstrate that any scientist who dares to question the Darwinian explanation of life on earth is sure to end his or her academic career.
The film doesn’t really argue for intelligent design, as its critics claim, it merely points out that scientific discoveries since the release of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859 reveal a growing number of “holes” in the theory. Nonetheless, the Darwinian presupposition remains so firmly entrenched within academia that it is the only accepted starting point in science and so the film exposes how universities have institutionalized its opposition to any alternative theories and true scientific inquiry.
The critics never address the central thesis of the film; they never offer any factual rebuttals, instead they ridicule the premise and any persons who point out that Darwinism is akin to religious dogma whose basis in actual science is diminishing.
The thing which most offended critics and reviewers of Stein’s film was his attempt to link Darwinism to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi’s. In an MSNBC.com review, Arthur Caplan calls the connection Stein draws between Darwin’s theory and the Holocaust “despicable.” Another critic writes, “Claiming that the Holocaust was motivated by ‘social Darwinism’ erases a long, sordid history of European anti-Semitism…. It was this anti-Semitism, inspired by the religious idea that the Jews killed Christ, that informed Hitler's willing executioners…”
Michael Giardinello, writing in the Stony Brook Independent writes, “The film points the finger at evolution as the cause for the holocaust…. There is also not a single mention of Darwin, or his theory, in Hitler's Mein Kampf.”
It is here, in the area of moral philosophy, that the Darwinian paradox is revealed. A paradox is a statement or proposition that contradicts itself. When it comes to Darwin’s evolutionary theory, this contradiction manifests in the area of morality and ethics. On the one hand, modern Darwinians posit that the universe is the result of impersonal, amoral, natural forces while on the other denying this undermines objective moral standards.
Darwin himself rejected the idea of any objective moral basis. He wrote in his autobiography that one “can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.” Challenging the intrinsic value of human beings because they are made in the image of God, Darwin wrote “man in his arrogance thinks himself a great work, worthy of the interposition of a deity. More humble and, I believe, true to consider him created from animals.” Darwin argued the difference between man and animal was quantitative, not qualitative thus blurring the distinction between man and beast.
Nineteenth century Darwinian scientists such as influential ethnologist Friedrich Hellwald insisted that ‘The right of the stronger is a natural law.” Ernst Haeckel (famed for his concocted drawings depicting the human embryonic stages) was the first German scholar to argue that disabled infants should be killed at birth. Haeckel and other Darwinians criticized the Judeo-Christian conceptions of humanity as “anthropocentric” and counter to evolutionary progress.
Cal State professor of history, Richard Weikart points outs in his exhaustive study on evolutionary ethics, “Many leading Darwinists in the late nineteenth century … claimed that in order to foster evolutionary progress, the less-valuable elements of humanity … had to be eliminated.” This sentiment was particularly popular among German academics. Weikart goes on to point out that these Darwinians were not content to wait on “natural selection” because “they feared that Judeo-Christian and humanitarian ethics … would produce biological degeneration, since the weak and sick would be allowed to reproduce.”
Comments
Star,
Where exactly have you been all these years? Evolutionary theory has been tested and shown its mertis both in labs and in courts, countless times over being show to valid, and teachable based on scientific merrit. Surely you recongnize all those court cases where the evolutionary theory was challenging and ended up being found correct, yes?
ifeelfine72
There is nothing unreasonable about the rules. If you are so convinced that you have evidence to prove evolution is true then put your money where your mouth is and prove your evidence in a court of law.
believer: Have you looked at the rules to the life science prize? They're completely ridiculous and don't have anything to do with science. Science isn't decided in a courthouse its decided in labratories and in the field.
agentorangex, am I to assume you that you have indeed taken the challenge at lifescienceprize.org since your so confident that scientifically creationism does not stand a chance in either disproving evolution or proving creation?
I am impressed folks, I left the questions on the table for anyone from the opposition to actually explain the evidence on human chromosome 2 and ERV's while i gone over the weekend and not a single person bothered. Guess I shouldn't be too suprised, belever, notw06, quecat and anyone else to take a shot at those two and actually cite the evdience countering them. Cheers.
Believer,
“To erv, agentorangex, along with all your other blog names you've evolved from and to I referred you to several books”
Ummm., huh huh, ‘ERV’ isn’t and wasn’t me, I was away on a vacation, I enjoy our talks, but the weekend is ‘me time’. I wish I could say I was mr/mrs ‘ERV’ as their responses were quite similar to my own, however I can’t take credit for their work.
notw06,
“In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable."
I am glad to see notw06 is back, and as before back on track with quote mining, way to go Captain Copy N Paste.
“how do you know that they aren't selling you a bill of goods? Why not go to some of these creationists website and read some of their stuff and see for yourself what they say.”
Let’s be clear here Star, the science I refer is generally up to date and current and backed by very well supported empirical facts and testing and ultimately if one like yourself were to educate themselves on the actual intricacies and the details regarding how Radio metric dating works for instance, or how genes can be used to understand timelines and heredity then after researching it becomes clearer and clearer on how fallacious most the claims are that they the creationist websites put forth. This is exemplified in how I gave the examples of human chromosome 2 and ERV’s and how places like AIG make no scientific explanation at all, they simply retort with ‘god made it that way’ and leave it at that. Sorry star, but ‘god made it that way isn’t scientific’ and shouldn’t and can’t be taught as such in schools.
P.s Flagged myself.
Star
I don't see it is my task to tell you God does not exist( I have no idea why you should think that), in fact to say that God does not exist would be an impossible thing to say.
Kind regards
Steve
steveh20
Re:A blind man cannot see the light BUT he can feel the heat of it on his skin so he will have knowledge of the propergation of some form of electromagnectic radiation and therefore be aware that it exists and has source even if he can't view it.
Put the blind man in a room where the temperature remains the same and turn the light on and off. He'll never know that you did anything.
Food for thought:
I know that God exist. I have been redeemed by the shed blood of His Son the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has supernaturally changed my life. I have and still do experience Him. You, an unbeliever, will never be able to tell me that God doesn't exist. Hopefully, oneday, God will remove the blinders from your spiritual eyes that you may see that He is real and that you have a need for Him.
flagged myself
grace 2, perhaps a better passage to consider in this matter is Romans 1:20-22, have a great Lord's Day, believer.
Gracee 2
A blind man cannot see the light BUT he can feel the heat of it on his skin so he will have knowledge of the propergation of some form of electromagnectic radiation and therefore be aware that it exists and has source even if he can't view it.
The person who does not see God or Gods may not be blind at all but is vewing reality ,it may be that the person who sees God or Gods is really having their eyes play a trick on them.
Food for thought?
John Marcus Doe
A physically blind man cannot see light. Does that mean it doesn't exist?
A spiritually blind man cannot see that God exists let alone see that he has a need for Him. Does that mean that God does not exist let alone wants to meet the blind man's need?
B.S. Evolution is a lie? You have got to be kidding. Religon is the worst lie of all. Let's all believe that there are unrealistic things floating among us. Let's blame all bad things on a horned creature that supposedly lives beneath the earth. Have you read the bible? Well I have. And for years I have years I have been fooled by its fairytales. Now that I think about it, it;s probably the most sexist, racist, biased, dull literary work there is. And all of those say evolution is a lie, it helps to do a little reading.