Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Ministries > Columns
Expelled was Excellent!
By
Greg Stier
Christian Post Guest Columnist
Thu, Apr. 17 2008 11:12 AM EDT
[-] Text [+]
Prev1Next
Most Commented Articles
La. Governor Signs 'Science Education Act'
Obama Prying Loose Evangelicals from Republicans
McCain Endorses Calif. Initiative to Protect Marriage
Federal Marriage Amendment Re-introduced in Senate
Anglican Head Sees Risks in Conservative Proposals
Why I Thank God for Charles Darwin
PCUSA Assembly Approves Deleting Gay Clergy Ban
Featured Advertiser Links
Comments
The reason why I think it is necessary to use terms that are clear, such as Neo-Darwinism and natural methodological evolution is simply because the term evolution has different conotations. Creationists for example believe in forms of evolution. YEC recognize micro-evolution. ID proponents recognize various degrees of macro-evolution. Behe for one example adheres to coomon decent while questioning random genetic mutations and natural selection alone as capable of giving rise to all complex organisms. There are other various degrees of agreement with evolution that doesn't necessarily refer to Neo-Darwinism. Not only is there confusion about this in the Christian community, but also apparently in the skeptics club as well.
Let me attempt to expound on the quite satisfactory answer to the origin of NeoDarwinism, as it highlights the fact that nobody in the scientific community "blindly" believes whatever Mr. Darwin espoused in The Origin of Species. Darwin didn't have the ample evidence provided by genetics, so his theory was based on hereditary pangenesis, which was SCIENTIFICALLY DISCREDITED due to the lack of evidence to support that aspect. Later, through genetic research, we discovered that the actual function relating to the transmission of hereditary characteristics from parent organisms to their children was carried out through Mendelian inheritance. The theory was updated and improved, which is something that could never happen with Intelligent Design, due to the utter lack of any observable evidence whatsoever.
The flim might make some change, but boy it's going to have a hard time defending itself in court with all those lawsuits comming up.
http://www.reuters.com/article/filmNews/idUSN2320158220080424
Seedplanter,
“The term Neo-Darwinism was not drummed up by misleading creationists to degrade evolutionists, but by evolutionists themselves.”
Time for me to learn you up young padawan. The tern Neo-Darwinism in regards to Evolutionary biology was adopted b/c 1) The older and wrong ideas of Darwin don’t fully or accurately describe how evolution works from what we know now, IE he missed on some of the details, mostly b/c they were things he genuinely didn’t know of and so it’s hard to blame him directly.
2) The real term in biological circles is ‘the modern (evolutionary) synthesis’, in which new more accurate processes describe some of the details Darwin was ignorant of or got wrong. This is why Neo-Darwinism is aptly named, as at the core his ideas of NS and others are still valid, while smaller ones aren’t and thus to define evolution as Darwinism or even Neo-Darwinism is wrong and misleading b/c it gives the impression that all of his ideas were correct, when they certainly weren’t.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
From this view, it’s about as logical and correct as defining all of the knowledge we know regarding evolutionary biology as (neo) Darwinism, as it is to define gravity as Newtonianism. A lot has changed in over 150 years since Origins, and to leave the impression that all of Darwin’s ideas define how evolution is understood today is wrong, thus the term Neo is needed to infer an additional layer of knowledge.
Cevink, quite simply, your air of superiority precedes you. To what do we poor helplessly ignorant Christians owe the honor of your visit? Are you afraid of the movie Expelled? Is that why you are here? The point? Yes that is the question now isn't it?
The term Neo-Darwinism was not drummed up by misleading creationists to degrade evolutionists, but by evolutionists themselves. It is a helpful tool to know and identify the common understanding of natural materialistic evolution, including common decent, natural selection and random genetic mutations. Many Christians hold to one or more of these, but not necessarily to the whole. When engaging dialogue, it is important to failiarize oneself with the terminology. Well, there you go.
cevink, is that all you're witing that they are censoring....wow. I can understand flagging hate speech, but this isn't at all and yet predictably it will likely be flagged. Countdown begins.....
I'm sorry, I would like you to point out where I claim to be superior....what I am claiming is that:
A. not only is evolution the superior hypothesis to explain the origin of life and species...
B. It is the *only* scientific hypothesis to do so.
now, I'm not sure just what you imply with "your claims of superiority betray you", but I can assure you that ad hominem attacks do not make an argument or even a valid point.
I don't think any of us "follow" Darwin....we just acknowledge that he is the first person to figure out that/how different species evolved to what they are today. If you have a better explanation that includes testable hypothesis, please do share it.
What you are making is a fallacious argument; appeal to authority (informal), as the founding fathers are *not* experts on evolution or any related field. Even Darwin believing in God makes no difference because theology is not Darwin's strength. I doubt any supporters of ID/Creationism can make anything *but* a fallacious argument, since none of them have any proof of anything they claim.
Seedplanter
Are you suggesting Darwin was a creationist now? He was religious in his early years, but following the death of his young daughter and following his research his faith was eroded. Keep in mind Darwin wrote On Origins 20 years before he published it and so his religious faith from that time had wavered. Seed, I can’t believe you’re actually considering Darwin’s supposed death bed confession, even creationist sites lik AIG confirm it’s not true.
To all dishonest secular atheist and agnostic, please stop the flagging and allow other people to express their opinion and believes. Also, secretly flagging your own post to gain leverage is called lying.
I'm sorry, I would like you to point out where I claim to be superior....what I am claiming is that:
A. not only is evolution the superior hypothesis to explain the origin of life and species...
B. It is the *only* scientific hypothesis to do so.
now, I'm not sure just what you imply with "your claims of superiority betray you", but I can assure you that ad hominem attacks do not make an argument or even a valid point.
cevnik, your ridiculous claims of superiority betrays you (w00t/Howard/George/oldguy/Dwen/yyyy/xxxx/first/danny2/danny/BobC/BobCu/Asdfg/zxcvb).
lossnerp, it is interesting that the first scientist to come up with the idea of survival of the fittest was actually a creationist. I also recently heard a discussion about Darwin's so called death bed conversion. I have long thought it to have been unreliable, but there certain data reveals that it is quite possibly true. His wife is said to have been a Christian and he himself had a Christian background prior to Origin of Species. I don't think it to be too far fetched to consider the possibility from those two points alone. Reportedly someone came in to see him and there were no witnesses to this confession, except for the visitor who apparently wrote about it later. His wife did not know about the meeting and thus it was considered legendary, but incidentally this meeting occurred when she claims to have been gone for a period of time. In any case I don’t think it really makes much difference in the evolution debate, especially considering numerous Christians adhere to complete Neo-Darwinism, such as Dr. Polkinghorn.
I have Original Intent by David Barton (of Wallbuilders) sitting on my shelf, but I have yet to read it.
lossnerp,
Uhm, I don't think any of us "follow" Darwin....we just acknowledge that he is the first person to figure out that/how different species evolved to what they are today. If you have a better explanation that includes testable hypothesis, please do share it.
What you are making is a fallacious argument; appeal to authority (informal), as the founding fathers are *not* experts on evolution or any related field. Even Darwin believing in God makes no difference because theology is not Darwin's strength. I doubt any supporters of ID/Creationism can make anything *but* a fallacious argument, since none of them have any proof of anything they claim.
For all you Darwin followers, check this out:
Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty, or rather impossibility, of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species. Charles Darwin
For our founding fathers opinions on evolution, which apparently has be a lie floating around since way before Darwin, check out Wallbuilders.com. There is also much information about their beliefs in religion in government as well. All sources are cited and many include photographs of the original texts.
Evolution is the best model in a natural materialistic point of view, regardless of its efficiency as a whole.
seedplanter,
check out the film, by all means I have nothing against it, you're free to do as you please. I would like someone who has seen it to explain what nuggets of evidence it puts forth and hope to level with people on why such evidences aren't all they are cut up to be. IE, Ireducible Complexity.
Some things should be open more to debate and discussion in the class room b/c not enough is known to know where the answer is. With regards to evolution and if it occurs, to say it doesn't occur, that evolution attempts to explain life origins is wrong. it's like trying to suggest the earh might, or might not revolve around the sun. We should teach whatever the evidence best supports and currently, for the diversity of life, evolution is the best such model.
cevink,
I would just like someone, anyone really, who has seen the film to clue me on all the apparent wisdome and wonderous education it provides from Steins Interviews. I notcied the usual suspects from the ID isle, namely Billy boy Dembski, Meyers, Behe, Berlinkski and others so I know what their likely propositions they are putting forward and wonder if any new geniune evidence for ID has come out of the film which can't be found in books or the net.
If you want to know the truth about what I think Agent, just ask. Did I mention anything in my original post about government schools? What do you recall me having stated on prior posts?
Agent, it sounds like it bothers you that I would go check out the film.
Actually, the film spends very little time arguing that the science class room should be a level playing field.
But now that you mention it, I ran across an interesting quote the other day by Dudley Field Malone, John Scope's attorney, "For God's sake, let the children have their minds kept open – close no doors to their knowledge; shut no door from them." An interesting twist of fate, huh?
oh my, sooooo many flaws in this poorly fact-checked piece of wishful thinking. If this is the best that the ID/creationist crowd can do, get used to your ideas being relegated to the confines of uber-fundie webloids. This movie can no more convince your average joe that life was created by a flying spaghetti monster than it can convince a majority of Americans that the sun revolves around the earth...an idea, which to my knowledge, you might still hold dear.
ah...marking posts as inappropriate; the last refuge of someone who cannot make a logical argument for ID/creationism/unprovable nonsense. The prosecution rests.
seedplanter,
ok, so now that you've viewed it perhaps you have some insight into the matter and on what grounds ID can and should be taught as science then?
Luckily, I save my posts in a text files to combat idiots like you:
oh my, sooooo many flaws in this poorly fact-checked piece of wishful thinking. If this is the best that the ID/creationist crowd can do, get used to your ideas being relegated to the confines of uber-fundie webloids. This movie can no more convince your average joe that life was created by a flying spaghetti monster than it can convince a majority of Americans that the sun revolves around the earth...an idea, which to my knowledge, you might still hold dear.
cevink
* Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:59 pm
* : 1
* : 0
* Flag
ah...marking posts as inappropriate; the last refuge of someone who cannot make a logical argument for ID/creationism/unprovable nonsense. The prosecution rests.
Luckily, I save my posts in a text files to combat idiots like you:
oh my, sooooo many flaws in this poorly fact-checked piece of wishful thinking. If this is the best that the ID/creationist crowd can do, get used to your ideas being relegated to the confines of uber-fundie webloids. This movie can no more convince your average joe that life was created by a flying spaghetti monster than it can convince a majority of Americans that the sun revolves around the earth...an idea, which to my knowledge, you might still hold dear.
ah...marking posts as inappropriate; the last refuge of someone who cannot make a logical argument for ID/creationism/unprovable nonsense. The prosecution rests.
steveh20;
Pehaps in the furture we could have a good conversation. I do believe this thread is just about played itself out.
Have a Blessed evening
Hawk49
Just got back from watching the movie. Mr. Stein did a good job, but I was disappointed that it wasn't as exciting as his web sight were he was wearing shorts and a tie. I would have enjoyed watching him interview Dawkins in that outfit; it would have been difficult to keep a straight face. I did not know that Stein was Jewish.
I hardly saw anything terribly insulting about the movie other than the fact that I.D. is being reduced to religious faith, while naturalism continues to rule the roost. All the time Neo-Darwinists are spending trying to refute the film seems to be a waste of time and energy. Why flag them? Let them continue their escapades, what else do they have to live for then science? Everybody needs something to live for. How would you like it if they tried to run your church? Science is after all based on presumptuous interpretations that arise from beliefs.
And regarding Mr. Sternberg, he was *not* drummed out of the Smithsonian...they had him change offices and updated the keys to a card system. The request to turn in his keys was in order to provide him with a new key card badge....the trashing he received from senior scientists was deserved, but also contained only in private emails. Mr. Sternberg's article was not properly reviewed by any of the people considered experts in the fields he was discussing, and lacking in any credibility....it was later withdrawn as having any merit. Expelled! contains so much factual misinformation, I hardly know where to begin.
Really? You take Genesis literally? So....you believe in the geocentric model of our solar system?
[shudder]
Please stick to pastoring youth and stay far afield from teaching or science.
Hello HAWK49
Many thanks for your reply to my comment.
Regards
Steve
someone please contact CP and have them re-allow the flagged posts, this is horrid. Censorship again? How pathetic.
Mr, Stier,
We opened it up to our youth group and their families and a lot of them showed up. We then opened it up to the remainder of the church and we had a pretty full theater! I definitely agree with you that it is a great conversation starter!
I thought Ben Stein and his crew did a pretty good job with the documentary. If in fact, the scientists interviewed, are claiming that they were misled, I believe it is only because they were exposed for what they truly are.
The following is an excerpt from my review of the film.
I just returned from watching Ben Stein's new controversial movie, Expelled. This movie was made to ensure that that American people had a better understanding of both secular view of the origins of life including Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, intelligent Design and Creation. There are proponents on each side of the equation, who adamantly adhere to their own beliefs and understanding of how life started on earth.
Ben Stein took a somewhat lighthearted approach to engage academia from both sides of the fence, to get their opinions, ideas, beliefs and understandings on the table. Mr. Stein interviewed many doctors and professors of universities, biological scientists, and population geneticists from around the globe.
Read full article at: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/725485/ben_stein_expelled.html
steve, please stop flagging everbody
Hey, whats with all this flagging?
Rejoice when they speak badly about you in my name??
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins
HAWK49,
Why should anyone respond to your comments? Our comments are being censored. These comments will probably be censored. What are you going to do about it? Do you want to contact christianpost.com and complain about it? Or do you approve of censorship? Our comments should be restored. Until my comments, and the comments of other people who like science, are restored, there is no reason for anyone to talk to you or anyone else.
Steveh20;
yes, it was that article by Steve Meyer's of Discovery Institute. And the evolutionist editor caught the wrath and was expelled;
What happens when an editor of a technical biology journal decides, along with others, to publish the first peer-reviewed technical article that casts doubt on Darwin and lays out the evidence for an intelligent designer?
In the case of Richard Sternberg, a Smithsonian research associate and former managing editor of the independent journal called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, it meant being cast out of the prestigious Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Shortly after publishing the article “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution lashed out at Sternberg, calling him a “shoddy scientist” and a “closet Bible thumper,” according to a Washington Post article (August 19).
If there was any Christian who had any moral values at all, he would contact the Christian Post and demand that the comments of agentorangex and myself be restored. I don't expect that to happen because all Christians are immoral. Extremely immoral. Prove me wrong.
"Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous Posts."
Notice it doesn't say anything about flagging comments just because you disagree with them.
Christians have a terrible reputation because they earned it. They make a movie about censorship called "Expelled" but nobody loves censorship more than the Christians. It's fair to say Christians are hypocrites.
hypocrisy: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess.
Christians are afraid of science. They are so terrified of science they censor anyone who likes science.
Christians love censorship.
agentorangex, both you and I were expelled. Isn't that interesting?
Ken Miller is a theist and a biologist. He's a very honest person. He has a very special skill. He can make complicated scientific facts easy to understand.
Any creationist who spends 30 minutes reading Ken Miller's explanation of biological evolution and the evidence for it at the Dover trial would no longer be a creationist.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day1am2.html
HAWK,
"They are just evolutionist interpretations"
Are you kidding? Well, you're not fooling anyone but yourself. You complained about 'no intermediate forms' and now that they are apparent for all to witness, exist in 'just the correct geological strata' to support the notion of evolution, you aren't having it?
Riddle me this HAWK, if evolution isn't the explanation, why were all those quasi human/apes doing roaming around some 2 million years ago?
If evolution isn't the case, we shouldn't be finding any of these anywhere, but we do. We shouldn't find fossils of such quasi human/apes, nor should we find genetic evidence which also supports common ancestry, but alas they exist. How one honestly rejects fossils you can physically hold in your hands, measure and test is beyond me.
And on a lesser note, Expelled apparently isn't doing too well after only a few nights.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/expelled-the-fi.html#more
HyperionOverseer, nobody is screaming at you to not to see the anti-science movie. Scientists are just pointing out how dishonest and ignorant it is. I noticed the producers of this movie, and the actor Ben Stein, know nothing about biology. Also, their dishonesty is documented here:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Can't wait to see it myself either, not certain if they'll rlease it in England though we're a bit more clued up here.
in a world that screams at me not to see this movie, i take pleasure in rebelling against the darkness!
this movie is now my priority one! the dvd too!
Would that be one of the papers written by Stepeh Myers who is senior fellow at the centre for science aqnd culture at the discovery institue, Seattle? I only ask because this socity has already published an article by him in its proceedings (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239).
And for the recored, the Cambrian explosion is more a slang term than just an "apperance of sudden life" it just means that over a brief geological period ( 80 - 9 Ma) multicellular life developed quickly, but this can be followed in the rocks.
Regards
Steve
A paper published recently in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington DC concluded that the so-called Cambrian explosion, the sudden appearance of new life forms about 530 million years ago, could best be understood in terms of an intelligent design. The paper was peer reviewed by 3 prominent evolutionary biologists. The paper answered questions raised by evolutionary biologists:
"As it happens, evolutionists Muller and Newman are not alone in this judgment. In the last decade or so a host of scientific essays and books have questioned the efficacy of selection and mutation as a mechanism for generating morphological novelty, as even a brief literature survey will establish. Thomson (1992:107) expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate via minor phenotypic changes at the population genetic level. Miklos (1993:29) argued that neo-Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and complexity. Gilbert et al. (1996) attempted to develop a new theory of evolutionary mechanisms to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argued, could not adequately explain macroevolution. As they put it in a memorable summary of the situation: “starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its (neo-Darwinism's) adequacy in explaining evolution."
Evolutionist Eugenie Scott pinned down the problem; people will think Darwinian evolution is scientifically weak; Avoid debates!
.
I believe that all the wisest men in the world for the six thousand years since it is commonly supposed to have been created, or six hundred thousand million years, or any number more, as I believe, have been altogether wrong, and that it has been reserved for me in this so-called nineteenth century to set them all right and lay down the law for ever. (All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Morris, B.A., 1877)
“…When will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps 94:8, 9).
http://tinyurl.com/3qmgwt
It will soon be 200 years since the birth of Charles Darwin and 150 years since the publication of On the Origin of Species, arguably the most important book ever written. In it, Darwin outlined an idea that many still find shocking – that all life on Earth, including human life, evolved through natural selection.
Darwin presented compelling evidence for evolution in On the Origin and, since his time, the case has become overwhelming. Countless fossil discoveries allow us to trace the evolution of today's organisms from earlier forms. DNA sequencing has confirmed beyond any doubt that all living creatures share a common origin. Innumerable examples of evolution in action can be seen all around us, from the pollution-matching pepper moth to fast-changing viruses such as HIV and H5N1 bird flu. Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth.
Dear savedsinner
It may interest you to know that my mum had eyes in the back of her head!!
:-P
Steve
I love these creationism vs. evolution debates...as an intellectual, they challenge me in new ways. However, as I sat in my MOPS group the other day, it hit me......If Darwin was correct than why is it that women who have children still only have 2 hands and 2 eyes and post partum depression is on the rise? So, in all my intelligence, the reality smacks me in the face daily as I chase my toddlers around......my body hasn't evolved to help me handle the tasks at hand, however, my awareness for my need of my Lord and Savior has increased....so who is really behind this whole gig?
Until I grow 2 more arms and eyes, I have to figure there is some greater intelligent design to all this. Genesis 1 may or may not be taken literally, but in my experience, God gives me the knowledge that I can handle until I'm ready to "discover" more intellectually.
Let the debates continue....
In the face of overwhelming evidence, the Catholics eventually gave up on demanding that the Sun revolves around the Earth. It took a while for people to get used to a new view of the world and God, but we don't think about it much these days. Expelled is just another sad episode of human ignorance. Do you really want to keep people in a state of ignorance? Realizing that the earth was not made in 6 literal days and Eve wasn't literally made from a rib is not as threatening to your faith as it might seem at first. If it is, the problem is not with the scientific facts ,but with the weakness and inflexibility of your conception of God. Let's all leave the Bronze Age behind.
Chris
Please accept my apologies, what terrible spelling and grammer, my only excuse is that I had just come in from work after a long shift and was tired.
I am ashamed at my abuse of the glorious English language, the Bard would be turning, nay spinning in his grave.
Steve :-p
Ah, the highlight from the previous post dissappeared, so it seems only the most recent name is highlighted... very strange indeed.
What is this!? Barack's name was only highlighted the first time, and the other two not at all!!! Somebody care to explain?
Steve,
I am surprised at your spelling, and your British! You do seem to be in a rather unforgiving mood on this post, but I guess I often appear that way as well...
I also found it interesting that 'Barack Obama' written below automatically was highlighted and a link to him came up, I have never seen that before on this site.... interesting, let's try an experiment shall we?
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain had a tea party.
Dear tburnett
I have a horrible suggestion concerning your thoughts on the formation of fossils. I suggest that you stop getting your answers from AIG or whatever web sites you visit (or books you read) and do something radical. I suggest you sgn up at a reputible university ( or night school etc.) and take a course in geology. This will enbale you to come to conclusions abot what you wrote below yourself and not just following what others have writen.
I know the answers to what you wrote but am mindfull of what the New Testamnet says about not casing your pearls before swine ( I'm in that sort of mood and don't feeel very forgiving tonight to stupidity)
Kind regards
Steve
We find millions of fossils all around the world, buried in layers...The bible describes a worldwide flood, that buried everything. This causes rapid fossilization. is it possible that a worldwide flood could have been the cause of all of the fossils that we find?
I believe Greg Stier is right on!
I don't know about expelled, but I found this post pretty interesting.
"Regardless of where you stand in the Creation vs. Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate"
Glad he recognized the difference between Creation and I.D.
" "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" pulls their fancy pants down and spanks em good."
Hmmmm...
"For once a movie that doesn’t make creationist Christians look like back woods dummies who cling on to their guns and their religion in the face of all the evidence."
Where have I heard "cling on to their guns and their religion..." wait, was that a stab at Barack Obama?
Thanks Greg, for a funny and intriguing post. I actually chuckled at the fancy pants part, something about that...
"If the theory is spot on then it shall withstand this and lots more. Laughing out loud"
Be assured my lost friend, Jesus Christ will last forever.
Ben Steins next project..?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxZqtyKD0FU
A dictionary definition of science: "science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research."
Why is it that Christians are always attacking science? Did God say acquiring knowledge is a bad thing? Is thinking a sin? Is lying about science a virtue? What's your problem Christians? Why are Christians always against scientific progress? Why are Christians always getting in the way? What are Christians so afraid of?
Greg Stier: "I wasn’t even that good at science."
Then why do you think you're qualified to say anything about science?
Greg Stier: "... the closed thinking of many evolutionists to consider any other origin options than evolution."
Scientists also claim there's no alternative to the idea that the earth orbits the sun. Does that mean they have closed thinking?
Accepting scientific facts like biological evolution because the evidence is overwhelming does not equal closed thinking.
Accepting scientific facts like biological evolution instead of supernatural magic is not closed thinking.
Greg Stier, you really need to stick with what you know. You obviously know nothing about science, so just maybe you shouldn't write about it.
Your claim that ten of thousands of scientists have closed minds just because they don't accept the childish nonsense in Genesis is insulting. You're the one with the closed mind. You're the one who refuses to study science, just because you're satisfied with ancient myths.
Greg Stier: "You may be surprised at how little compelling evidence Darwinian evolution actually does provide."
That's called lying Greg Stier. It's dishonest to say evolution has little evidence and it's insulting. Believe in magical creation if you want. Nobody cares about your childish fantasies. But you got a lot of nerve to spread lies about science.
Evolutionist Eugene Koonin seems to have troubles remembering that Darwinian macroelutioon is a fact:
...The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal. HYPOTHESIS: I propose that most or all major evolutionary transitions that show the "explosive" pattern of emergence...no intermediate forms???...Darwinism appears to be a myth
Pattiepie
How people talk has no bearing on whether I like them.
Steve
No, the majority of the general population will not be able to enjoy this film because of the huge amount of dishonesty in it. See http://expelledexposed.com. What you see there is not part of an atheistic conspiracy. As a religious person myself, it has always astonished me how willing "creation scientists" are to lie in order to indoctrinate the lay public. Its just a little less astonishing how willing people who are smart enough to know better will believe that the scientific community is perpetrating a vast conspiracy. This itself is a form of dishonesty. Dishonesty is shameful in any religion I'm aware of, and certainly in Christianity. Its not an "alternative world view" to claim that you have peer reviewed published evidence when you plainly do not. Its not an "alternative world view" to indoctrinate the public in any of the lies claimed to be science that are rehashed over and over again by spokesmen of any of the varients of creation science. And its all so achingly unnecessary. Science can not challenge religious belief, no matter how often atheists claim it does. Science and religion are two very different things. Science does not produce a God's eye view. Science is a human creation, and doesn’t produce absolute truth. In 200 years time we will appear as backward as people in the 18th century appear to us. Everything in science could possibly be thrown out the window tomorrow, provided that new evidence was produced by the scientific method, and it was good enough to convince the scientific community. “World view” doesn’t produce science. There are just as many believers as in the general population. However, it is definitely elitist. It is not democratic, it is not fair, and you and I don't get to vote on it. It’s done by a consensus of elites weighing experimental evidence produced by empirical observation. That's science, that's the way it is. It’s a flawed, human, creative process. The scientific community will continue to do what they do regardless. The believers of "alternative science" will simply not be able to interpret what they’re doing. Teach that science is an imperfect human creation, teach that God provides the only absolute truth, but don't teach lies about an "alternative science". You can be a creationist without being a "creation scientist". I'm a creationist. But its increasingly important that the general population be able to interpret what's being reported by scientists. Don't screw this up. We'll all be the poorer for it.
Hey steveh20
Whys is it that you are a quotin Greg? Dos you agree?
"No. I wasn’t even that good at science. I believe it because the Bible says it."