CP HOME
> Ministries > Columns
How to Share Your Faith Using Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
By
Jane Dratz
Christian Post Guest Columnist
Fri, Apr. 18 2008 02:15 PM EDT
[-] Text [+]
Prev1Next
Submit Related News Tips & Photos
Survey: McCain, Obama Supporters Differ Greatly on Poverty
'Christian' Call for Boycott of Bill Maher Film Adds to Satire
Christian Site Claims Obama is Most Pro-Life Candidate
Second Episcopal Diocese Breaks from National Church
Major Global Prayer Initiative for Jerusalem Peace Begins
Pastor John Hagee Recovering after Surgery
Thousands of California Christian Youth Empowered to Defend Marriage
Indian Christians Report 'Peculiar' Police Behavior
Second Episcopal Diocese Breaks from National Church
Assyrian Christians Protest Iraq Election Law
Pope: Modern Culture Pushing God Out
Mother Fights to Keep Twins from Muslim Father
Charity Tells of Suffering in Holy Land
Survey: McCain, Obama Supporters Differ Greatly on Poverty
Thousands of California Christian Youth Empowered to Defend Marriage (131 comments)
Over 800 Scientists Stand Against Language Critical of Evolution (117 comments)
Episcopalians Meet to Apologize for Slavery (32 comments)
'Christian' Call for Boycott of Bill Maher Film Adds to Satire (30 comments)
Palin: I Identify with the Average American Struggles (28 comments)
Biden, Palin Contend for 'Change' Reputation (25 comments)
Islam, Secularism and the Gospel – Part II (25 comments)
Featured Advertiser Links
Comments
“But for it to be put forth as absolute TRUTH (fact) it "must" be supported "by HARD FACTUAL EVIDENCE" to make it so”
Here’s some evidence, deduce away.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
truth_revealed,
“"theory": ...which *some believe can have a totally new and DIFFERENT meaning when it comes to "science”
The very meanings of words depend upon CONTEXT and their implied meaning, with no CONTEXT words have not much meaning.
“Of *COURSE* the word "theory" has a "particular" meaning "in the context of science" because "SCIENCE ITSELF" conveniently **MADE it that way!”
Well, science also uses words like ‘law’ in reference to science solutions which are mathematically backed, however only no smart person would think in such cases it implies the knowledge relates to some arbitrary man made law. Again, this is why CONTEXT is key. In any matter they could change the word ‘theory’ as its used in science and use something more concrete, it still wouldn’t change what the underpinning and message means regarding the evidence, ultimately the EVIDENCE is what matters, so rather than arguing over semantics, argue the evidence. Evolution as a process is a FACT, the FACTS of Evolution is explained by the model/theory of Evolution, this is why in Science theories are larger than facts, as they support and explain the facts.
“That has to be one of the most ridiculous uses of deceitful hypocrisy that I've yet to encounter.”
No, it’s b/c you don’t understand the vernacular or how ‘context’ changes the implied meaning of a word.
“Because science has to have a way to make their "hypothesis and theory" APPEAR as "FACT" to delude the masses”
So by this logic it’s not correct to accept other ‘theories’ in science too then? Say goodbye to gravitational THEORY, cell THEORY, atomic THEORY, etc. Just b/c you can’t grasp what ‘theory’ denotes in the context of science doesn’t make it wrong; it just means you have much to learn.
“When there's ONE rule for science and ANOTHER rule for everyone else that's sheer hypocrisy.”
No, it’s called CONTEXT. Context gives a word its derived meaning and thus a given word isn’t applicable to all situations, it’s dependent upon the CONTEXT of which its used in.
“what is the purpose in arguing about it. What difference does it make if we believe the earth was created on the back of a turtle? Why do you care?”
How about wanting to know genuinely what is true in all things, shouldn’t, above all else, we be most concerned with what is true? After all our beliefs influence our decisions and based on that, knowing what is true is important. If you don’t care for truth and you couldn’t care less if we know if the earth is round or sits on back of a turtle, then why are you here what gives YOU purpose?
Are you genuinely indifferent to such things or is it simply above your head and you’d rather not wrestle with it? Oh no, dare not to think and learn, such a dreadful thing!
lossnerp,
It is a theory, regardless of how it is defined, not fact.”
Gravity is a ‘theory’ too pal. As is atomic matter, and cell theory, and quantum theory and tectonic plate ‘theory’. You see, ‘theory’ in the context of science is different from how we use it in layman speech, understand the difference and you’ll see why a ‘theory’ in science is actually a strong argument. A theory in science explains observed facts.
Secondly, most scientist don’t geniuely question the theory of evolution, regardless if they are in biology or not. The list the DI provides are mostly mathematic persons are those not directly in the fields of biology. I know donexodus produced a vid on ‘how many scientists actually reject evolutionary theory’ enjoy.
www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2
‘the lack of sufficient missing links”
Like these ?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
“the complexity of the cell”
These and other instances of IC were addressed in Dover in 2005 when Behe has to confess such biological systems weren’t IC. Besides, comment on the evidence from vids I gave earlier. You asked for evidence, there you go explain away.
AGENT ORANGATANG- Regarding the word "theory": ...which *some believe can have a totally new and DIFFERENT meaning when it comes to "science"...but ONLY then!
Of *COURSE* the word "theory" has a "particular" meaning "in the context of science" because "SCIENCE ITSELF" conveniently **MADE it that way! That has to be one of the most ridiculous uses of deceitful hypocrisy that I've yet to encounter.
WHY is this particular meaning only used in "science"? Hmm?..Because science has to have a way to make their "hypothesis and theory" APPEAR as "FACT" to delude the masses!.
That's deliberately deceiving, self -serving and outrageously hypocritical.
In a nutshell...UN-trustworthy!
Shouldn't we expect much more than that from our "faithful scientists" who seem to control so much of what one thinks and believes???
The word THEORY can evidently ONLY be used in such a manner by SCIENCE...because THEY *invented* the "extension of the definition" and made it their very own for their own dilusional purposes.
When there's ONE rule for science and ANOTHER rule for everyone else that's sheer hypocrisy. NOT SCIENCE.
What's WORSE is that evolutionists FALL for the it !! - Talk about gullible and non-educated!
Having said all that I WILL agree that there are times when a hypothesis IS actually proven to be true...but only AFTER it has been *TESTED* and produces HARD convincing EVIDENCE. Once it has been tested and PROVEN then it CAN (generally) be trusted as a "FACT". But for it to be put forth as absolute TRUTH (fact) it "must" be supported "by HARD FACTUAL EVIDENCE" to make it so.
If a scientist tells me "The dog is peeing on the carpet" I would expect some proof. I would go in, SEE the dog peeing on the carpet...see the wet spot and maybe even smell it and feel it... just to be certain. If I was still not convinced, I might even take some of the wet substance into my lab and test it to be sure that it was REALLY urine. I would then most likely find that it was INDEED urine. In THAT case, when the statement or hypothesis IS SUPPORTED by HARD FACTS (I *saw* the dog peeing on the carpet, I TESTED the urine etc) then it has EVERY right to be called a TRUTH or a FACT. But then and ONLY then.
MANY so-called "Scientific FACTS" are NOT supported by any such evidences. THIS is where they very conveniently stick in their "other" deceptive meaning for "theory".
Claiming that "It's truth because we SAY it's truth...but we have no real proof to back it up".
GIVE me a BREAK!
To recap once more for those of who JUST don't get it yet:
A theory is ALWAYS going to be "a theory" unless or until it's PROVEN true.
SCIENCE ITSELF conveniently *changed* the true definition to the following:
"It may also SOMETIMES mean FACT"
...but ONLY when it suits their own selfish purposes.
At ANY OTHER time, it simply means what it means; a theory. ;o)
The beauty of "Expelled" is that Ben Stein has shown us that we don't have to get into the public schools to talk to people about Creationism and Intelligent Design. I am calling upon Christians to start buying Creationism and Intelligent Design books and DVDs for the purpose of giving those books and DVDs to friends and neighbors, especially those with Jr. High and High School age kids. If we are going to take back origins science education from the God-hating Darwinists, we are going to have to circumvent the public education system and go directly to the people ourselves. Are you on board with me? Please vist my blogsite http://exploringcreationism.blogspot.com God bless you.
What I do not understand is why atheist even bother to argue about evolution anyway. Since ithe atheist believe that we simply fight to survive then die and are eaten by worms, what is the purpose in arguing about it. What difference does it make if we believe the earth was created on the back of a turtle? Why do you care? Unless you are indeed mixing philosophy with science, which you chastise Christians for doing. Do you think that atheist maybe have other motives?
I stand corrected on the name. I will attribute that to the small screen to type and the fact that on a previous post it was referenced that all of you were of the same thought.
Somehow, you are missing my point as well. I didn't say if X people believe in it, it must be true. You find that idea ridiculous, and so do I. But the same standard must be put to evolution as well. If 1000 scientists believe in it, does not make it true, if the facts cannot be proven, and they have not. It is a theory, regardless of how it is defined, not fact. There are still toomany unanswered questions to make it fact; the lack of sufficient missing links; the complexity of the cell; the incredible mathematical improbability numbers. The list goes on.
First of all, you are responding to agentorangex's post...not mine. Hard to hold a valid debate with someone who isn't sure which posts are written by me, but I will attempt to refute you anyway. Let me reiterate; an argument based on "This many people believe X, so it must be true" is fallacious (ie. argumentum ad populum) and an argument made stating "Person X believed Y, so it must be true" is also not logically sound (ie. argumentum ad verecundiam) because it doesn't matter what a person believes if they are not an expert at the subject at hand. The Beatles might believe the Fed should cut interest rates on long term loans...but it doesn't matter because the Beatles are not experts in fiduciary matters and I doubt Bernake will listen to their opinion. Darwin's religious beliefs are not pertinent to our discussion here.
Let me play Devil's advocate (go ahead and have as much fun as you like with that one...I'll wait....) and accept your invalid points, and then make a few invalid observations of my own. Have you heard about the petition that was signed by 1000 scientists in favor of teaching ID/creationism along with evolution? They found 1000 "scientists" to sign this petition and it took the better part of a year, but the ID crowd happily pointed to it as validation of ID/creationism...UNTIL mainstream science responded with a petition of it's own; they got 1000 scientists NAMED STEVE to sign a petition stating that ID was unscientific nonsense. Here's a little argumentum ad verecundiam for you: the POPE admitted evolution was very real and the framed it as the tool God uses to enact His will. Again, a useless argument because the pope doesn't know evolution from microwave popcorn...but since you like informal fallacies SO MUCH, I thought I would bring it to your attention.
I don't believe I am superior to you in any way except for possibly being better at applying logic, I'm sure there are areas where you might well outshine me....this just doesn't happen to be one of them. =)
cervink,
So your source of proof is youtube? Let me make it clear. There are LOTS of qualified scientists that are not convinced that evolution is a fact! Many can't even accept it as theory. If there were only five qualified scientist that questioned it, then their views need to be taken into account and at least discussed. The FACT is that this issue is still so hotly debated after all these years, means that it HAS NOT been proven. The earth revolving around the sun, no one will argue about. A frog turning into a prince given a million years, it no so convincing. That is the point of the Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed. As Carl Sagan said, "We will search for truth, no matter where it leads." Unless of course it leads to God, then, "Oh no, we can't go there."
Ignoreance_revealed,
“THEORY" of evolution (with "theory" meaning no more than a guess or hypothesis)’
No, it doesn’t, ‘theory’ in the context of science doesn’t mean the same thing as how layman’s use it. A theory in science is supported by facts, a theory is larger than facts in science. A theory is a unifying idea which collectively supports all evidence and is used because it has explanatory power as it can be used to make testable predictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
lossnerp
“Nor do you have proof that evolution is true”
How does this work for evidence that its true?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
Cervink,
Nor do you have proof that evolution is true.
scitsonga,
I think you missed the obvious point. You may not know this, but Thomas Jefferson was not the ONLY founding father. And why his letter is not clear to EVERYONE based on other things that were written around that time, and perhaps this private letter between two individuals should not carry as much weight as other documents, ( like the treaty with England seal with "In the name of the Holy Trinity" ) the fact is that many of the other founding father DID believe in mixing the two with safeguards. Otherwise why would they have paid for the priniting of an American Bible, with their only hesitation being that they wanted to make sure it was the most accurate translation possible?
See references before quoted.
LOL...It looks as if the atheists are becoming a bit nervous....seeing that truth is finally, and irrefutably being revealed. The "THEORY" of evolution (with "theory" meaning no more than a guess or hypothesis) *WILL* be exposed for the psuedo-science that it is...and it will be exposed by SCIENCE itself. It's only a matter of time. ;)
.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.
aritonang, you got a lot of nerve saying that considering how many from the secular, atheist, agnostic side are the ones being censored. (cevink, myself, georgex, steve, w00t,)
lossnerp, Its pretty clear that T. Jefferson did not want religion in government. Why would one want to mix religion and government anyway? There are hundreds and perhaps thousands of different christian denominations, which of those views would be part of government. Perhaps rekindle the religious wars of Europe to settle the differences? Jefferson did not want religion in government as he was a student of history- christians religious wars in europe and was aware of all the different views and interpretations among christians. What about non-christians, would they be left out of the democratic process denied due process in the courts if christianity and government were to be melted into a theocracy. pat robertson once said that if he were president, non-christians would not be allowed in his administration, fortunately, he will never be president. Do we really want a government that imposes religious tests on its citizens? The vast majority of americans have no interest in a christian theocracy.
sitsonga,
I have read the letter. It is still not obvious to everyone what exactly his intent and meaning. The anti-religious people use this one letter all the time. They tend to leave out the 100s of other documents and writings that very clearly support the mix of Chrisitanty and government. It is very clear to the intent of the founding fathers when they supported the publication of the Aiekin Bible. Link below.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=46
aritonang, Perhaps its christians that are flagging, after all, its christians that attempt to impose limits of free speech and free expression in the US. Atheists and agnostics welcomes free speech and oppose censorship, cant say that about christians.
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.
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.
To lossnerp,
Here is what the principal author of the US constitution, Thomas Jefferson, had written to the Danbury Baptists in 1802:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Mr. Jefferson didn't think much of the idea of mixing religion & government together.
scitsonga, check out this.
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. 8
Charles Darwin
You will find many views of what the founding fathers thought of evolution at Wallbuilders. Apparently the same old lie was around even before Darwin. Original sources are cited.
oh my, sooooo many flaws in this poorly fact-checked piece of wishful thinking. If this is the best that the ID/creationist crowd can do, get used to your ideas being relegated to the confines of uber-fundie webloids. This movie can no more convince your average joe that life was created by a flying spaghetti monster than it can convince a majority of Americans that the sun revolves around the earth...an idea, which to my knowledge, you might still hold dear.
ah...marking posts as inappropriate; the last refuge of someone who cannot make a logical argument for ID/creationism/unprovable nonsense. The prosecution rests.
"agentorangex, please stop flagging :"
I am not flagging, I have come out numerous times expressing my disgust for censoring others, I have no reason to flag anyone as I'd rather they lay their rope to hang themselves. So me flagging people isn't in mine and others best interest b/c it doesn't allow me to rebut them or a greater increase in knowledge for all, and that is generally why I am here.
agentorangex, please stop flagging
Gailgal "This nation was meant to be Christian no matter what the godless society say or think."
No, actually the Us was not meant to be Christian, the founding fathers crafted our country into a democratic republic meaning that the people of the US can practice whatever religion they choose, or choose none, be agnostics or atheists. Its called freedom to choose for oneself.
From the first amendment of the US constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
I dont see anything about the US being a christian country.
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.
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.
"Do you think Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific theory on the origin of life? Why or why not?"
No, ID isn't even falsifiable as they refuse to define the 'designer' and thus it is removed from critique which by its very unintellgient design makes it not Scientific. Secondly, evolutionary theory isn't an explanation to the origins of life either, but rather an explanation to the origins of species, aka biodiversity.
"Does it matter what’s taught in schools about this topic?"
talk about your all time rhetorical questions.....OF COURSE it matters.
steve, stop flagging everybody
"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.
GailGal: "This nation used to be a nation of free speech, but no longer."
There is still free speech in America, but apparently not here on christianpost.com. Christians love censorship.
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
Nevin,
“Can you show one piece of evidence that supports evolution?”
Sure, how about these for starters.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PaHcsGzyp4A ( 9 part series)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2WoHFc7eE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
“ How about that the earth was created from a big bang?”
Actually no where in the big bang theory does it imply ‘bang, then out came the earth’. The big bang theory is a model which explains why/how our Universe has expanded and continues to expand, it's only loosely related to the formation of our Earth from formation of galaxies, stars, supernova and so on. The formation of our SOLar system is more relevant to the formation of all the planets, ours included and this doesn't require understanding or knowing the big bang theory at all.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0FPUutjtqfw
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8RHfUFljTmw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
GailGal: "This nation used to be a nation of free speech, but no longer."
No free speech in America? Didn't you just write your opinions on the internet for the whole world to read? Did anyone censor you? Free speech has never been stronger.
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.
Hopefully "Expelled" will enlighten the public that wants to be enlightened to the agenda of the evolutionists/atheists/agnostics to shut the Christians up by their taunts and mockings, curses and belittling but, when people know the Truth, they cannot be stopped. This movie is causing almost as much stir among the evolutionist community as The Quest for Right book which was just released. It has a ring of the truth also and the atheists/evolution gangs just hate it and have jumped on it like ravaging wolves out to kill, and few have even read it yet. Truth will prevail no matter how hard you try to gag it. This nation used to be a nation of free speech, but no longer. Everyone can talk but the Christians yet the Christians were the ones that founded this nation. This nation was meant to be Christian no matter what the godless society say or think.
If you have done little or no reading on this issue then your viewpoint is one from ignorance. Google "Intelligent Design" and spend an hour finding answers on your own. If you wish to discuss this issue further come over to the 'Evolution and Origins' forum at http://www.talkrational.org/
Why would I want to delete your comments, I enjoy watching you give yourself enough rope etc....
hey steve, why do you delete both of my comments? do you support censorship?
Hello aritonang
I pleased (from reading your posts) that your faith brings you the "peace that passeth all understanding" (Phillipians)
Kind regards
Steve
Nevin,
Here's an oldie-but-a-goodie: IJdo JW, Baldini A, Ward DC, Reeders ST, Wells RA, Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1991 Oct 15;88(20):9051-5
You can find it in a good library. Ya know, that building where all the books are.
Why does everybody feels touchy when discussing evolution?
Why the need for censorship? Do you shut everybody who is not in agreement with you
My oh my,
hey whoever you are, why do you delete both of my comments? do you support censorship?
GeorgeX,
Can you show one piece of evidence that supports evolution? How about that the earth was created from a big bang? There isn't any proof of either of those things. There are things that appear that they may be connected, but no proof that evolution happens, and no proof of a big bang. It is taught as fact when there is no evidence of it. It takes more "faith" to believe in evolution than it does in a creator who created the earth in 6 days.
Jane Dratz: "The freedom to follow the scientific evidence down whatever road it leads, including the road that points to an Intelligent Designer, is a deep-seated longing in the human soul!"
Everyone knows the designer is God, so let's call it God, OK?
You quoted the Bible, but the Bible can't be called scientific evidence. There could never be any valid scientific evidence for God. That's why people say they have faith in God. Faith means believing in things that have no evidence. It's dishonest to say there could be scientific evidence for God.
Jane Dratz: "Stein invites you along on his journey as he lays bare the reality that teachers, students and scientists are being silenced and persecuted for the fact that they believe there is evidence of 'design' in nature."
You would be more honest if you replaced the word "design" with the word "magic".
No matter what you choose to call it, it's still magic and it's still a childish idea. Intelligent magic is a religious idea, a very anti-science religious idea. A biology teacher who teaches religious magic instead of the science of biological evolution in a biology class is totally incompetent and should be fired immediately. It's not fair to students to be stuck with a teacher who knows nothing about the subject being taught. Religious ideas belong in Sunday school. Science and only science belongs in science education.
aritonang, You probably think you're funny, but if you were an educated person you would know all humans, including yourself, are distant cousins of every other species on earth. Instead of educating yourself, you have decided reject modern science. You're wasting your life with your medieval belief in magical creation.
Studying science and understanding the natural world can be very rewarding, but you will never know what you're missing.
steve are you related to bob the chimp or billy the worm? Laughing out Loud
It must be terrible to have to clasp at such straws to spread ones faith.