Since its release on April 18, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” the pro-intelligent design documentary featuring actor Ben Stein, has earned an astounding $6.6 million while only in its 3rd week in the box office.
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
> Entertainment > Movie
'Expelled' Filmmakers Claim 'Over the Top' Success
By
Alexander J. Sheffrin
Christian Post Reporter
Tue, May. 06 2008 08:47 AM EDT
[-] Text [+]
Comments
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