Expelled, the movie (It's about censorship)
Many of the scientists who were interviewed for the soon-to-be-released movie, Expelled, are claiming that the film is an argument for Intelligent Design and against evolution. It appears that the working title for the movie was "Crossroads: the intersection of religion and science." Some of the people interviewed are claiming that they would have said something different if they had known the true name and subject.
However, I don't think any of them have seen the movie yet, and the website blog and trailers seem to focus on the treatment of "rebels" with in the science community, especially those who question "Darwinism."
According to the producers:
Here's what the interviewees are saying:
Richard Dawkins
PJ Myers on his blog, Pharyngula
The New York Times
Then, there's this and this from Bioethics.net, the blog of the editors and pseudoeditors of the American Journal of Bioethics.
However, I don't think any of them have seen the movie yet, and the website blog and trailers seem to focus on the treatment of "rebels" with in the science community, especially those who question "Darwinism."
According to the producers:
“People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale,” said Walt Ruloff, co-executive producer and co-founder of Premise Media, which is producing the film.
He continued to say that his company agreed to take up the film’s production because they “believe the greatest asset of humanity is our freedom to explore and discover truth.”
The film’s original title was Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion, according to U.K.-based The Guardian. The film company said the movie's title was changed, on the advice of marketing experts.
Here's what the interviewees are saying:
Richard Dawkins
PJ Myers on his blog, Pharyngula
The New York Times
Then, there's this and this from Bioethics.net, the blog of the editors and pseudoeditors of the American Journal of Bioethics.
Labels: bioethics
posted by LifeEthics.org at 10/04/2007 08:05:00 AM
140 Comments:
"People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale."
Yes, "people" are often "stunned" by the truth. :-)
great comment...
Mommy, tell me the story about how atoms, molecules and such randomly, without true and realistic mathematic probability, began the universe.
Who believes in a fairytale?
It's about bribing schools to bring their kids:
http://www.getexpelled.com/schools.php
Pfsh, of course Dawkins is ticked off. He vowed not to debate creationists because that in itself would imply that creationists have a ground.
I'm in academia and even those who are theistic evolutionists are persecuted.
Thanks for the confirmation, Gia-lệ. I've seen and experienced the exclusion, even as an undergraduate and then as a medical student.
You people are funny. None of you can explain what any alternate theory might postulate.
ID is a psuedo-science, while the The Theory of Evolution is well supported by over a 150 years of research and data. Not too mention, that it has withstood 150 years of denialists taking their best shots at debunking it, unsuccessfully.
Anonymous said... "..The Theory of Evolution is well supported by over a 150 years of research and data."
Of course we must all be on the same page with our terms before any valid debate can occur, to wit:
"Which theory of evolution are you talking about?
"...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.
A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them.
By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.
On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based.
Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider _the spirit_ as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ..."
Excerpted from:
Theories of Evolution
John Paul II
Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29. Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
And no, I'm not RCC, Baptist, nor any so-called "fundie".
We are part of nature. Nature made us and at our death we will be reabsorbed into nature. We are at home in nature and in our bodies. This is where we belong. This is the only place where we can find and make our paradise, not in some imaginary world on the other side of the grave. NATURE IS THE ONLY PARADISE THEREFORE SEPARATION FROM NATURE IS THE ONLY HELL. When we destroy nature, we create hell on earth for other species and for ourselves. Nature is our mother, our home, our security, our peace, our past and our future. We should treat natural things and habitats as believers treat their temples and shrines, as sacred - to be revered and preserved in all their intricate and fragile beauty.
"......IF PEOPLE EVER REALIZE THE TRUTH OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO NATURE AND THE TRUTH OF THEIR PERSONAL POWER THE ENTIRE MANUFACTURED ZEITGEIST THEY PREY UPON WILL COLAPSE LIKE A HOUSE OF CARDS" ~Zeitgeist
What is the point of this movie other than to twist scientists words and use them out of context. Most of the scientists interveiwed in this movie where under a false impression of the movie's true subject and purpose. the only scientists that believe that shit are the ones brainwashed from birth to live in fear if they dont. Anything that forces you to believe in it OR ELSE!! is a CULT. Religeon is nothing more than astrology transisted into metaphors. this is NOT to be taken literally!! There is a reason why jesus is the "son of god" You want me to interpret that? SUN of god. Jesus is nothing more that the Sun iteself misinterpreted to be in Human form. The Sun is the giver of ALL life. Without it I would not be sitting here right now typing this comment trying to get it into people's brainwashed minds and make them realize how we are at ONE with Nature. There would be no plants no trees and certainly no Humans to write up riduclous stories to force people to do what they want.I say this movie is all part of the manufactured zeitgeist to separate Humans from Nature so as to gain control of our minds. You might ask "why would they want to do that?" MONEY POWER GREED these people are so separated from Nature due to those 3 things that they dont see with eyeballs, they see with dollar signs. I refuse to believe that my life and my success depends on what people tell me. I already know, we ALL know what to do here on Earth. we dont need to be taught or told, it is our Nature to KNOW. If all Humans were given the opportunity to be their own guide here on Earth there would be peace.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace" ~Jimi Hendrix
I will NEVER give in to the fear. I will live in peace and happiness and feel content in knowing the true meaning of success. Iam Human. Iam Nature. Iam the Earth. Iam the Universe. I may not know exactly what "god" is but I sure as hell know what "he" isnt.
"They must find it difficult...Those who have taken authority as the truth rather than truth as the authority"
I'd like to address a quote brought up in an earlier comment:
"Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider _the spirit_ as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ..."
Excerpted from:
Theories of Evolution
John Paul II
Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29. Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
"the spirit" "the truth about man" "the dignity of the person" are all three learned religious notions which John Paul is trying to fit into reality. What is the grounds for believing in a _spirit_? The grounds are assumed into the picture by religion, and are the basis of many ID supporters: "I KNOW that I have a soul, and Jesus is the only way to God, and the universe is God's creation. Evolutionary theory is against my faith-based beliefs (ie. blind belief), and I know for sure I am right, so therefore evolutionary theory must be incorrect, no matter what the evidence for it is" Is this not a proper summary of the cause for the ID/Evolution debate?
I feel I should clarify what I said: "What is the grounds for believing in a _spirit_?" In my personal understanding of the universe, there is no need for a spirit as Christianity sees it - an eternal soul which is a separate entity from everything else. In fact this assumption of a soul gives rise to a strong belief that our "self" is real, which I don't buy, and I can see is the primary cause of pain and evil in the world. Also, I see no need for believing in a personified God which is separate from us. What real (not the Bible) evidence is there for believing in the Christian God? Or heaven? or hell? I think the ideas of Christianity are wonderful metaphors which, when taken in the right way, can lead to one living a better life, but are NOT to be taken literally. For example heaven and hell are states of mind, and the parables tell what kind of psychology and actions lead to these states of mind.
If one looks into Eastern spiritual traditions such as Buddhism, one will find that their philosophies "consider _the spirit_ [the self] as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter," and are NOT IN ANY WAY "incompatible with the truth about man."
I think that taking Christian messages literally is simply wrong, and to do this was not the original intention of Jesus. The ID debate is bringing into focus this fact, and is a farewell call to the dying meme of Christian fundamentalism. I look forward in the future to see eastern philosophical notions taught to children along side with science, instead of telling them that all of the parables really happened, and that science is evil. Then I think the world would be a better place.
Anonymous is sure busy and multi-faceted.
I have to agree with the Zeitgeist quotes, here.
Expelled, from the reviews I've read of it, looks like a pretty garbage movie with very little science, very little support for intelligent design and a poor understanding of contemporary evolutionary biology.
From Wikipedia:
"The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that 'intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life' are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own."
The fact that Stein also rejects exogenesis, the belief that life originated elsewhere and traveled to Earth, indicates that he is not even a true intelligent design proponent, but a theological demagogue.
"Mommy, tell me the story about how atoms, molecules and such randomly, without true and realistic mathematic probability, began the universe.
Who believes in a fairytale?"
Of couse this is not evolution, this is "abiogenesis". Evolution is supported by a large body of scientific evidence. Abiogenesis happened on this Earth about 3 billion years ago, so the exact details of how it happened are still quite speculative. See the article in the February issue of Discover magazine. Seems to be a quite realistic possibility.
You all say ID is not true "science" but presuppose evolution is. I'm curious what your definition of science is. According to the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, science is “knowledge attained through study or practice or knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method and concerned with the physical world.” And what is the scientific method? According to Merriam Webster, it's “principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”
Is evolution reproducible? No. Can it be observed and tested in an experimental, controlled environment? No. I have yet to see anyone prove or disprove evolution based on the scientific method. And that is why evolution is as much a theory as intelligent design. Anyone who argues otherwise is letting their own bias, preferences and underlying world view influence reality. Evolution has no more a place in the scientific community than ID. It is merely a hypothesis of the worst kind: one that cannot be tested, measured, reproduced or observed in an experimental, controlled setting.
Remember, you can't argue with people that are so closed minded as to call your beleifs and views on life a fairy tale when they have never even scractched the surface of what life is all about themselves. FYI, they will never see things the way the majority of people do(spiritually), so let them be to ponder their own existence by themselves and hopefully one day they will be enlightened. For now, it's like trying to shove a square peg into a round hole, God could smack them in the face and they would think it was the wind! ;)
Who was there? Was anyone there(then) not seeing G-d make the world? Who was there when evolution "happened"?
The same reasons the "elitists" use to prove the nonexistence G-d are the same reasons that prove their own god cannot exist. They believe in a god which they also deny, though they believe in no god at all and for the reasons too common to man.
I find it incredibly suspect that though they claim there is no G-d, they hate Him so forcefully. Why do they reserve so much disdain for that which does not exist?
Most of these guys aren't just "setting the record straight." And if they were, who should care? The real fairy tale is attributing some kind of objective significance to a world of chance. The contradiction is expecting someone to listen to you when you're preaching that what you say has no meaning.
Peace yo.
I took a second to scroll through some of these well written and intelligent posts.
I've rehearsed the rhetoric and got my feet wet in this sort of thing. I realized that most people search for a piece of information to fit their world view, and they make it the most sophisticated piece of data they can wrap their mind around. When their mind gets bigger they just find more wrapping paper. Who here is really willing to believe anything different? Who came here with the express purpose of doing something besides inserting yourself?
Most of us, including myself, will leave with what we came with unchanged. In the end, most of us are just justifying our conclusions. That doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong. It means the real debate isn't about truth here, it seldom is.
Ok, good luck posting. Kbye.
"Evolution has no more a place in the scientific community than ID."
You are, of course, completely ignorant about science.
What is wrong with believing in Jesus? Why does this bother so many people? Why can people worship anything or anyother god other than Jesus and not be ridiculed? I would like to know the number of people who make statements about Jesus can say that they have really tried Jesus and have read the Bible from Genesis all the way to Revelations. I was always taught to read the book before I give a report!
Latest anon,
You had good teachers. I was also taught that more than knowing the facts, you need to know where to find them and how to look them up.
"Facts" will change as we learn more, see more and measure more. Do we have any sort of stable measurement, any camera or scale - or even any dictionary that we can use as common language and common ground?
The movie is actually about this very question and how professors, researchers and students are treated in the universities and research centers. There is evidence that the current bad news is that if you believe in the Gospel, you are suspect and guilty until proven innocent.
The opening lines of the Bible tell us more about the "Origins" than any other book. We know there was something before the Big Bang - if it turns out that the latest iteration of the explanation for the beginnings of the universe proves true.
Believers are often asked where God came from. However, that's just avoiding the question about where the matter and energy in the universe came from
Even if we invent infinite numbers of universes and big bangs, we still come down to the fact that the something that is our universe came from nothing.
"In the beginning ___(fill in the blank)__" My "God created the heavens and the earth" is just as good as adding one more layer of universes on.
The other question is why would God allow evil and pain in the universe? The believer's responsive question is, " It's good to recognize the existence of good and evil, but, if there is no super-natural, extra-universal Measure of good and evil, where did this concept come from? If it's simply a function that survived our human evolution, then why should we persist in acting good, and avoiding evil? If we're just another step in evolution, what is the value of acting as though humans even have such a thing as "rights"?
"There is evidence that the current bad news is that if you believe in the Gospel, you are suspect and guilty until proven innocent."
This is what Ben Stein might try to trick you into believing. He will tell one side of each of the "stories". But if he told the other side, you might just find that the pseudo-scientists trying to claim that "God did it" aren't real scientists. But they aren't guilty of anything except nonsense and they were never actually punished.
"If it's simply a function that survived our human evolution, then why should we persist in acting good, and avoiding evil?"
It's a very good survival trait. If you are punished by society for doing evil, you are less likely to reproduce.
Someone commented earilier with the question of why people can worship any other god outside of Christianity and not be riduculed- but rather be tolerated and encouraged to have freedom of religion. As soon as someone mentions Jesus, the persecution begins. It is because Jesus is the light, and darkness tries to hide from the light. Darkness knows that it will be exposed in the presence of the light. The fear of exposure to the true light proves that Jesus is exactly who He says He is- God, the true light of the world.
Yes, let’s go see poor Guillermo Gonzalez, who was denied tenure because of his deeply held beliefs. Of course, the fact that he didn’t publish, hardly worked, and couldn’t get a grant to save his life had nothing to do with it. And how about that poor Caroline Crocker, whose contract was not renewed after she started taking up class time with her own personal rants instead of teaching the subject she was being paid to teach. What a poster child for religious persecution!
And how can this movie fail to be anything but a raging box office success, when the target audience is being bribed, excuse me, is being offered discounts and rebates to see it? Classics like this just don’t come along every day!
It's good to see the conversation still going on. Just think how busy we'll be when the movie opens in April.
Irony 101 - Expelled from the Expelled the Movie
PZ Myers, biologist and associate professor at University of Minnesota, Morris was Expelled from an invite-only screening of the documentary Expelled — No Intelligence Allowed on Thursday night at the Mall of America in Bloomington, MN. He, along with his family and his distinguished guest had registered online for the event and had received email confirmations. While standing in line, PZ Myers (who appears in the film) was recognized and informed by security that he would not be allowed inside the theater. A bemused Myers agreed to leave the theater without further incident, while his family and guest were allowed to remain in line and eventually preview the movie. Myer's guest was non-other than, esteemed biologist and critic of Intelligent Design, Richard Dawkins, who also appears in the movie Expelled. While they watched the film with a handful of preselected ID-friendly critics and guests, PZ Myers went down to the Apple Store and wrote about the event on his blog at ScienceBlogs: Pharyngula. Later that night, he posted a follow-up that explained the details of his Expulsion from the documentary Expelled."
The expulsion of Myers from the showing of the movie Expelled shows the utter hypocrisy of the producer of this movie -- Myers was even credited at the end of the movie, but was not allowed to view it. Who is censoring whom? And before I listen to a lot of whining from Christian fundamentalists who are still a majority in this land, about how "persecuted" they are, let me state that I was BEATEN UP by Christers in high school for being an atheist. Creationism has no more place in a science class than the teaching of Mein Kampf would have in a Civics class.
Jesus isn't science. God isn't science. Saying that evolution happened "randomly" implies that you've never read anything on evolution, as you do not even understand what natural selection is.
And to every sub-literate fundamentalist who puffs up their chests and laugh off the 'randomness' of evolution, I've yet to hear the probability of atoms "just randomly" forming into a faceless, ageless, sexless, omnipotent, omniscient, immortal god. Because there is no probability of that happening, and because it's fiction, not science.
I was going to say that I am going to have a heart attack if I hear one more creationitwit say that evolution is random chance. However, I probably would have had a heart attack long ago since it keeps popping up. Thankfully, I am alright. I guess I am glad that they keep making themselves look ignorant... over and over and over again. Evolution is not random and even if it were, that argument has no meaning. What you mean to say is that there is a mountain of evidence which confirms evolution and absolutely no evidence to disprove it and you would prefer that that was not the case. Try that next time. This is why you resort to saying that free-speech rights are violated or that atheists are Nazis (Hitler was a creationist but of course that does not make creationists Nazis) or that science is out to get you. As soon as creationitwits have some science, they will be welcomed with open ears. Until then start a church and stay away from my children!
Mark from Margate, FL
Dear sir, you are an idiot.
I'd say more, I'd give logic, theory, evidence, but honestly, you are, indeed, an idiot. Sorry to be so rude, but it boils down to that.
Science is agnostic. It does not "believe in" anything. It recounts the steps and processes undergone to seek and describe demonstrable "proofs."
To the gullible "believers" that's it's greatest sin.
I agree, the movie is about "censorship" and how teachers have lost their jobs who question Darwinism.
Even as we speak, there are special interest groups trying to convince theaters not to show this film. They are afraid it might encourage skepticism about how the Universe was made.
When someone says he can make a box out of thin air, we all laugh. Why? Because it's impossible to make a box out of thin air. But Evolutions claim the Universe started with nothing even less than thin air...lol
I saw an atheist argue that something can be created out of nothing by chance. That sounds more supernatural than science even without an intelligent designer. When you claim that something can be created out of nothing even by chance which defies the law of physics, it's a supernatural occurrence.
THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
Defines energy as a mass which cannot be created out of nothing, and can be changed from one form to another but the total amount remains the same.
I can understand the struggle that people may have with the Bible or questions about Christ being who he said he was, etc. But what I can't understand is how anybody can look at wonder of creation and even their own existence and not realize that SOMEBODY had to put all of this here. There may be disagreements about who that somebody is or what they are like but I don't see how anybody can think that this all happened with no intelligence involved.
I find it ironic that we spend millions of dollars on programs like SETI where we scan the heavens looking for intelligent life on other planets and we would accept an electronic signal pattern as possible evidence to support that possibility. But we can't look out our own window and see the miracle of the patterns that are staring us in the face everyday and acknowledge that this didn't happen by accident.
I've heard discussions on radio talk shows where creationists will share their views and the evolutionists will come out of the woodwork ridiculing the ideas as "non-scientific". Then I've heard other shows where the topic is the possibility that life on this planet was the result of some alien race experiment. Nary an evolutionist would call in with a single objection. I wonder why since this is a theory that involves intelligent design?
I think the real problem the evolutionists have with creationisim is the idea that there is a moral authority higher than themselves that they are accountable to.
Well folks I'm sorry to burst your bubble but denying the truth will not change what the truth really is. You can run but you can't hide behind your degrees, your scientific "facts", or the comfort you find in other like-minded "scientists". It is only a question of time before the truth will be staring you right in the face and there will be no arugment that can deny it and no place to hide.
The second most foolish idea that mankind ever came up with is the idea of evolution, ie. that life came about without intelligence. The most foolish idea is that there is no creator.
Believe it now or believe it later.
Rick
I was reading in some atheist blog who claimed he was "expelled" from seeing the movie. It was a private screening, and instead of waiting to see the movie like other people he thought he could crash the screening party and start challenging it...lol
Many Darwinists are not too happy, even suggesting a so-called right wing religious conspiracy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Michael, I'm afraid that you've got the story wrong. The "invitation" was open - not at at all private. Interested people - with no apparent restrictions - were allowed to register on line. The story is available here.
PZ Meyers blog before his attempt at the movie...
… I will go see this movie, and I will cheer loudly at my 30 seconds or whatever on the screen, and I will certainly disembowel its arguments here and in any print venue that wants me. That’s going to be fun.
Do you really think the producers wanted him to "cheer loudly" every time he appeared on the screen or sit there and give his rebuttal while people are trying to watch the film? Such arrogance on the man's part and using his family as well...
Thanks Rick. As a Christian with a well-rounded education, it's nice to see that someone out there doesn't believe me irrational for believing that I was created. The age of reason is taking it's toll. I fear for my 17 month old son. He is a miracle. I have been blessed. For all the ridicule my faith has taken these past 27 years, it's great to see reason questioned. There is one Truth. He died for me. I hope others see this before it's too late. I'm sure many of you scoff at me. Go ahead. It's happened my entire life.
Yeah I feel for the parents and their children these days because they do face quite a battle with this world system. You've already taken a huge step of faith by having your son and that same faith will keep him.
Peace,
Rick
You might want to read commentary upon the arguments the movie presents:
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Expelled:Leader%27s_Guide
"it's great to see reason questioned"
Yes, that old problem - reason - is much worse than its opposite - unreason. I mean, just think where we would be if unreason had been chosen so many times in the last few centuries instead of reason. Can you say "Dark Ages"? I doubt it.
Michael
I think you mean the Second Law of Thermodynamics?!
The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems. The Earth is constantly receiving energy from the Sun. Life is free to evolve without violating natural law.
And please... if your understanding of Evolution boils down to "random chance", you have no place at the debate table until you gain at least a remedial understanding. Start here: Understanding Evolution
Come on guys, even the Catholic Pope has said that accepting evolution is compatible with Christian faith.
Let's step out of the Dark Ages!
Flunked, not Expelled: What Ben Stein isn't telling you about Intelligent Design
Hi, I'm a Christian and a biological scientist and a parent and a teacher so I feel a little bit qualified to respond to some of these posts!
The theory of biological evolution is compatible with Christian belief and the infallibility of Scripture etc. Why are we so afraid of it? Up until 1960 and the publication of THe Genesis Flood (apart from a brief spell in the 20s) evolution and the ancient age of the earth were becoming quite widely accepted in the Christian community. Well before the time of Darwin (think 4th century AD), theologians were wondering whether Genesis 1-3 should be taken literally or figuratively.
I agree that no human was there at the birth of the universe but scientists are investigating the evidence that remains and evolution is so far the best explanation so far to account for what we have now.
We now have a situation where opposing positions are becoming more and more polarised. I feel sad about this; we are alienating Christians from science and scientists from Christ. If you belong to the one who declares himself to be the truth, take the time to investigate scientific truth.
On the other hand, we scientists also need to be humble enough to recognise that not all questions can be answered from within our discipline: Why do we value human life? Why do all known human civilisations worship God? Why are we here? Why are we even asking questions like why are we here?
We can learn from each other. Perhaps it might have been of more benefit if the producers of Expelled had made "Crossroads" instead?
Evolutionists get so worked up about religion being introduced in science education - but what is religion, isn't it merely a belief in the unseen; a hope and faith in that which can not be explained? I beg to argue that evolution is as much religion as it is science. most evolutionists are so unwilling to give a shred of credibility to those of us who try to explain with our faith the fundamental questions of life - yet, they themselves sit, wait and HOPE for when the missing gaps in their theory will finally come together to make something even remotely coherent. Now, do not get me wrong, I only say this in response to those who look at evolution and are in no way willing to see that there are major faults in the theory that have yet to be understood. Which, in my opinion, will only be answered if the so-called "intermediate" forms are ever found…
I'm a biologist and understand the frustration that most scientists face when people are not able to approach this discussion with a real understanding of what evolution is. Evidence is there and clear that microevolution does exist. However, macroevolution (where species evolve into divergent species) is in no way supported by current findings on the scale that most evolutionary biologists would have you believe.
Species do not evolve - they adapt... it should be noted that there are numerous ways to categorize species and there is not one distinctly recognized means in the study of evolutionary biology (which is very relevant to our understanding of evolution and more precisely, species evolving). All in all, educate yourself about this discussion and you'll find yourself more able to support your own claims, see the film and understand that everyone is pushing a message. I can not sit here and say that I believe my ancestors were apes. Maybe - just maybe - if everyone truly knew they posses the image of the Creator, we wouldn't be having this conversation...
All evolutionist who slap our creator in the face by arrogantly deneying His very exisistance will quickly become creationist a moment after their unescapable death. Believers only seek to save them in Love by introducing them to the only one who can save them Jesus Christ.
someone said something about stein not being and ID... because he does not believe in the possibility that there is life on other planets. for ur info many scientist don't believe in that even HAWKINS. U said the movie seem pretty garbage with little scientifict facts. lol Look who the interviewers are. They are Hardcore evolutiosnist ( well not all of them obviouly)
i don't mean to be rude or anything but could people stop just dropping the longest quotes ever. just give us the url or whatever it's called and we will look it up. Also my english teacher always tell me not to put quotes without explaining it even if it seems to be self explanatory. :)
One question:
If we are evolving via darwins "thoery" then why are there still Apes? Also, which group of apes were smart enough to leave the group to become smart apes.
Also, if evolution is truth then why fear the theory of creation design. Whether it stood for 150 years means nothing if it doesn't stand for a second thought. All the writers are saying is try another theory. You that are "open-minded" are only OPEN to your ideas.
No opposing ideas welcomed. You know what I think, you fear God and that is why you cleave to a different theory and any mention of any other [idea] threatens your ability to continue thinking in the way you do...it's not about truth it's about remaining in your current lifestyle.
But as I said before, which group of Apes said "were out of here" to the other group!
Hi Wsasser, I love the comment, "No opposing ideas welcomed". That's great for encouraging dialogue between people and furthering the spread of the good news of the one who said, "Come now, let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18).
Re which group of apes etc: nobody "decided" they wouldn't be apes anymore, a random mutation would have occurred which would have been of benefit in the environment for a few members of the species. Over time, successive mutation/adaptation would have conferred on this species some advantages that were conserved. Usually this happens in an isolated species, which is why you get such distinct varieties of species in island environments. (Eg marsupials are almost exclusively found in Australia).
I know you said, "No opposing ideas welcomed" but perhaps Darrel Falk's book, "Coming to peace with science" could be of benefit at least in understanding where people who believe in evolution are coming from.
To anonymous (whoever you are...), using emotive expressions like slapping the Creator in the face and referring to evolutionists as arrogant is not helpful in this discussion. I want to know more about how the Creator made this world and I think from the evidence that has been presented that He used evolution. This is not slapping Him in the face- all truth is God's truth.
One more thing (sorry for taking up so much space here), I appreciated anonymous the biologist's comment about evolution being similar to religion in that it involves an element of faith. Have you ever read "Rebuilding the Matrix" by Denis Alexander? It's an excellent read and the chapter on "Reweaving the Rainbow" goes through many similarities between belief in evolution and belief in God...
Whew. I feel like I am walking into a hailstorm. Better get my mucklucks.
I think one of the major problems in Christianity today is the casual, subjective and self-declaring usage of the word "Christian". An example:
If I said the word "Fireman", virtually everyone here would have the same exact concept of what a fireman is. Why? Because there are a series of universal criterion that everyone acknowledges of which one must fullfil all of in order to be declared a fireman. In this example, one major criterion would be that they must fight fires. One cannot go around saying, "I am a firefighter!", when in fact, they do not fight fires. This would be a lie.
On the other hand, the word "Christian" does not have universal meaning, nor are there a universal set of criterion that determine what a Christian is. In the first century AD, a Christian was one who followed Christ, and believed in his teachings. Today, that is not so. For instance, to a Muslim, a Christian is anyone who is not a Muslim. Mormons, the self proclaimed "Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints" claim themselves Christians, yet do not believe in the divinity of Christ! To do so takes the "Christ" out of "Christian"! The Unitarian Universalist church says itself on its website that you can believe whatever you want, and its fine with them, and you can call yourself a Christian!
Anyone can go out and proclaim themselves Christians, and everyone else will believe them. If ever they do anything immoral or "wrong", their acts are loaded onto the backs of everyone else under the "Christian" envolope, as very actually think of 'Christian' as one who follows Christ.
Both democratic candidates have gone out and proclaimed themselves Christians because it is good for their campaigns, yet neither one of their actions bear the fruit of the spirit, not have they placed Christian principles into their campaigns.
I'm curious Clair how you as a Christian can be an evolutionist. Are you taking the observations of a corrupt creation (us) over the knowledge and speech of the all-powerful God?
Both Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17 proclaim a six day creation: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day." "It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested."
How also do you reconcile Romans 5:12-13, which states: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned for before the law was given, sin was in the world.
According to that verse: Man > Sin > Death ; not Death > Man > Sin, as is neccessary for evolution.
For me personally, I do not see why evolution seems logical to the general populace. We can discover an Island in the South pacific, covered in Stone heads, all facing the same direction. We look around, and realize that the only mine that these heads could have come from is hundreds of miles away on another island, and yet we realize that these stones MUST have been the creation of a human being. At the same time, we look at Billions and billions of smaller heads that populate the earth, that are billions of times more complex than a single one of the stone heads, and we cannot even contemplate the idea that - get this - something created them. *Guffaw*.
It just seems illogical.
Foy
There are insurmountable failures of evolutionary science called Abiogenesis. Life is the product of intelligent contrivance. Thus, apparent design in biology would constitute evidence for a Designer. It is a self-evident and universally recognized truth: concept and design require an intelligent designer. To simply dismiss the concept of a Creator as being unscientific is to "violate the very objectivity of science itself." While we may not be able to comprehend knowledge of a Creator, we certainly can apprehend it. Great article here: http://www.eternalpath.com/creationism.html
Perhaps God used those billions of years to plan, test and develop a rich habitat to nourish and stimulate His children.
Degradation and deterioration of this habitat is evidence of people exercising their free will and choosing to abandon His logic and love.
Evolutions teaching of an upward climb from slime to the sublime is nowhere to be seen. Not in nature or its creatures. Decay and destruction increase in all things.
The whole creation groans within itself waiting for the revealing (manifestation) of His children and the reinstatement of His rule of love.
Hey Foy, thanks for your comment although it was quite hurtful. I don't know how to prove to you that I am a true Christian. I know the difference between nominal and real Christians. My parents became Christians when adults (born again, shall we say?) after being brought up as nominal Christians. I asked Jesus to be my Saviour as a small child, was baptised at 14 and love the Lord and strive to follow Him and obey Him in every aspect of my life. I DO believe God created the world but I think He used evolution.
The funny thing about this is that for 29 years I believed in a young earth and special creation too and even though I had a Ph.D in microbiology I refused to acknowledge the evidence pointing towards evolution. I plucked up the courage to read Francis Collins's book "The Language of God" (I was afraid to because I knew he believed in evolution and like Foy was skeptical that one could be a Christian and believe evolution). This book convinced me and I have kept reading books on both sides since then. (You can check out some of my struggles with coming to this conclusion on www.myspace.com/dr_clairet Blogs: bad language and others).
I am so sad that you refuse to believe I could be your sister in Christ, a forgiven sinner like yourself, because I believe God used evolution.
So much for my "credentials", now Foy, to the Bible. I believe it is the inspired word of God. The reason science began was that men believed that creation would show marks of God's handiwork and they would learn more about God through studying his world. If God is the Creator (and I believe He is), then the evidence in the world should not contradict the Word.
About Romans 5:12-13, I think Paul is talking about spiritual death (i.e. eternal separation from God) because he goes on to talk about eternal life coming through Jesus Christ (5:21). Now we know as believers that even though we are saved we will still face death but have the promise of eternal life. Otherwise the promise that we will never die but have everlasting life in John 3:16 makes no sense either.
I'm aware I've taken up a lot of space so I won't go into the six days of creation unless you're interested. Also, re evolution not making sense, I know it seems counter-intuitive but it does make so much sense, particularly the genetics of it.
First off, I apologize Clair if I sounded mean. I did not mean (bad pun) it that way, but I can see how it came off that way. Sorry. : (
Now, if we take death in this case spiritually, why not take Jesus' death as a spiritual death, an not physical? If we take the events in early genesis as figurative or poetic - events which are displayed not in someones exact speech, as in Job, but in narrative form - why can't we take the events of Jesus' death as figurative? It's just one small step to take it that far, and if it does happen, the Christian religion goes POOF!, because the death of Jesus is what Christianity is all about.
Have to go, will speak more later.
This page itself, proves the point, that this film is making; “That the anti-creationist crowd, can & will destroy the reputation of anyone who dares, to say anything against Darwinism.”
You can clearly see this, by all the times that we see, “Anonymous said..”:
People realize that if they don’t “march in step”, with the forces that be, bad things might happen to them.
Thus, the name of the film, “Expelled”!
I fully agree, with the last comment!
I don't know much about this movie. I'm not a biologist or a theology student. I do know this: Whether it took God a billion billion years or six 24-hour periods, the universe came from somewhere. I also know that convincing someone to believe in creation does not make him/her a Christian. There are beliefs about divine creation in religions all over the world. What does make someone a Christian is convincing him/her that no person is perfect, that no person can live up to the standard of a God who is perfect, that a concept of morality exists in all cultures b/c it was put there by God, & that the only way we can hope to enjoy a fulfilling relationship with a God who is perfect is to accept the free gift of recociliation that was offered when His perfect Son and extension of Himself agreed exchange our imperfections for His perfection, allowing us to have a relationship with the Creator, by whatever method, of the Universe. Until someone is a Christian, God cannot reveal ANY other truth to him/her, so why waste your breath screaming your beliefs about Creation to a non-believer? Let's share the really important truth, & then we as God's people can seek His truth together. I'll probably never make it back to this blog again, but that's my thought.
-Meg
Thanks Foy, I appreciate that. Meg, I fully agree with your last comment, particularly "then we as God's people can seek His truth together." I think also it's important to make every effort to keep the bond of peace among believers even if we disagree with each other.
Re taking death as spiritual and not physical. Romans 5:12- "in this way death came to all men, because all sinned"; this seems to imply that the death referred to here does not apply to physical death because it seems to exclude plants/animals. "Death came to all MEN". Only mankind is accountable to God for sin. I'm taking death here to be spiritual death because that makes sense in the context of the whole passage. See v.18- "the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." We know that we all will die, so we take life here to mean eternal life.
Also in Genesis when God made Adam and Eve clothes from animal skins, I think this hints towards the fact that there may have been dead animals around?
Believe me I was also petrified when I started looking at the evidence for evolution that the Bible would fall apart but the more I checked, the more I realised it was the way that we had been interpreting this over the centuries that was questionable, not the text itself.
In the 4th century Augustine wrote a book about Genesis and wondered whether the creation story should be taken literally or figuratively. (So it's not just Christians trying to explain away Genesis in the light of recent scientific advances). The reasons for taking it figuratively are that Gen1 is highly stylised prose, almost poetry. There is clear emphasis on repetition which Hebrews used in poetry (think parallelism in the Psalms). Also there is beautiful symmetry in the first three days, where God forms the light (1), water/sky (2), land/plants (3) and the next three days when He fills it with sun/moon/stars (4), fish/birds (5) and animals (6). I've written more on my blog; I kinda feel bad taking over LifeEthics' page like this, hope they don't mind...!
The movie is about the elitist scientific community refusing to allow any other opinion than there own. It is not really a debate on ID vs. evolution. I tend to agree that anyone who says anything against evolution is lambasted into oblivion to shut them up. My question would be why do people who claim to investigate and analyze for a living refuse to investigate and analyze. I thought science was supposed to be about new discovers and new theories to find answers. If you refuse to discuss anything different or listen to a different opinion and you can’t even argue something different you would be a communist. There are many countries available for people who don’t believe in free speech. I would suggest that those who refuse to let others have there right to free speech move to one of those other countries. Atheists, scientist and theist alike. The first amendment gives all the right to free speech, right or wrong. And the government’s job is to defend that right. Funny none of them are doing that in this case
I see the posts; I wish to reply, but can't now. Maybe tonight, probably tomorrow afternoon.
We look forward to it, Foy! Got out some library books on intelligent design, young earth creationism, old earth creationism and theistic evolution to double check what each side believes!
"Consensus" has no place in 'science', really; and, that is the main contributing factor to having films like this one. Same thing with "Global Warming"-- Oops, I mean "climate change".
"Jesus isn't science. God isn't science. Saying that evolution happened "randomly" implies that you've never read anything on evolution, as you do not even understand what natural selection is."
Natural Selection doesn't explain "Evolution of Life from Chemical Soup".
Shutting down discussions is what the movie is about.
The movie is about "Censoring" by the "Atheistic 'Scientific' Community".
"We're right, and everyone else is stupid and ignorant" and the Door is "Closed" on discussion.
I obviously haven't seen this movie or read the interviewees blogs, but here is what I want someone to answer for me:
1. Why do the evolutionists use words like; surmise, suppose, assume, believe, propose, etc. when talking about the origin of life. Those words seem to be "faith" based words.
2. Why do evolutionists assume that all or most fundies are idiots. I'm willing to bet a year's salary that I have an IQ in the 99th percentile of all evolutionists. I make 300K a year, how much do you make?
3. Where in the heck is this "mountain of evidence"? If there was a mountain of evidence then why are we even talking about it? Why is there even a debate? Might it be because evolutionists entire argument hinges on a multi-billion year time frame for there fun little theories. When you people don't have an answer for a problem you simply insert a few million years to make your improbable hypothesis more plausible.
4. Might evolution hang around because it allows people to muffle the voice of their conscience because without God around to ruin your fun you can live how you feel? Don't respond to that, just answer yourself honestly, use your conscience as your guide and be honest with yourself.
5. Before you condemn Christ and Christians, why don't you shed your either pre-conceived notions or your bad religious experiences and open up your Bible starting with Matthew and start a personal, open-minded journey into the Bible. Don't form your opinions about God based on other peoples religion, humans are imperfect.
6. The reason no one can convince me that I am wrong is because I am no longer just a believer in God, but I have personally experienced God and that cannot be argued. Once you experience God you don't need proof he exists, you know because of your experience.
To the latest Anonymous,
2. Why do you feel the need to boast about your salary, "Let he who boasts boast in the Lord." and "Blessed are the poor..." Salary is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence either. However, as a Christian who has experienced the humble Nazarene for yourself, why would you even make this an issue? Would you not rather be wronged unfairly (as Jesus was) and have people think you a fool than go online declaring to all how rich you are?
3. "Mountain of evidence"... Take your pick: "Rebuilding the matrix" Denis Alexander, "Perspectives on an evolving creation" Keith Miller, "Coming to peace with science" Darrel Falk, "Creation or evolution, do we have to choose?".All written by christians and available on amazon. Or if you'd rather listen online check out Graeme Finlay or Simon Conway Morris's lectures on www.faraday-institute.org in the multimedia folder. The reason we're still talking about this is because we haven't been listening when people have presented us with evidence for evolution.
4. You said not to answer but honestly once I came to see the evidence for evolution I had to humbly come before God and admit I had been too arrogant and afraid to see the truth and it has renewed my awe for Him. What a world, what a God!
5-6. This is sad because you want others to shed their pre-conceived notions, but you won't shed yours! Believing in evolution does not make you an atheist! (Or a liberal nominal Christian either)
Hi, rather than taking over Beverley's page (as I feel I'm doing, sorry!) I posted an old myspace blog about evolution on http://claire-searchingfortruth.blogspot.com/
so that if anyone's on blogger they can access that more easily than myspace. If you do post a comment, please sign yr name though even if you are anonymous to give some clarity to who I'm talking to about what. Thanks. I'll keep checking this one too though...!
For one thing, I don’t think you are “hogging” the page. I think this is what the blog is for. : ) I apologize ahead of time for my punctuation errors. :)
Before I tackle the recent posts, I want to go back to our Romans discussions. I’m going to go through Romans 5, starting with verse 6, and ending at the end of the chapter, verse 20. My personal comments will be in [ bold brackets]:
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died [God was perfect. How could he experience spiritual death? Thus, this must be referring to a Physical death (PD) [] for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die [PD[] for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die [PD]. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died [PD] for us.
9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death [again, death of Christ, a PD] of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! [because he is physically alive, he can save us. A dead guy can’t save you that well, even if he has paid the punishment for our sins] 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
12Therefore [Meaning “taking all that into account” , just as sin entered the world through one man, and death [After all this discussion about physical death, why would there be an immediate and quick switch to it meaning Spiritual Death (SD) when there was nothing to say that it might switch? ] through sin, and in this way death [PD] came to all men, because all sinned[For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in£ Christ Jesus our Lord].—13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command [ How could spiritual death reign over those who had not committed a sin? ], as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died [PD] by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man [ This death, I believe, does refer to a SD, as the words ‘reigned through’ are used. It is not being referred to as a physical action. ], how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life[ Spiritual life God gives, as well as the physical] through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death[SD, ‘reign’again], so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Did I make sense, or did that come out horribly wrong?
Another thing that I have some problems with: Image if you will two boxes, one marked “God”, another marked “The world”. Now, you place in the God box everything that God has told you about the Universe, and everything in it, whether you believe it or not. Place in the second box everything the world has told you about the Universe. Now, place a third box in the middle, mark it “me”
Now, take the things that you believe to be true from one of the two boxes into your own. What happens when they each present different ideas on one issue? Do you take God’s view? Do you take man’s view? Or do you take a little of both, and combine them?
You seem to have no problem admitting to the fact that science is wrong when it comes to the resurrection, because every scientist will say that it is impossible to raise someone from the dead. There is absolutely ZERO scientifical evidence to support it – on the contrary, Zillions of scientific evidence points the opposite way, and yet you still believe that! What is so bad about believing the fact that God created the world in six days? My teacher told me this, and I agree with him: I’d rather get in trouble up in heaven because I gave God too much credit (if that is possible), than getting up into heaven and finding that I gave him too little credit.
Y'all keep on talking. I love the conversation, just don't have the energy to blog much these days.
The hole that was my basement is almost full. But that means I've got to come up with the house plans and get the rest of the junk put away properly.
Wonder what will happen to the conversation when the movie comes out?
Charles Darwin to John Herschel, 23 May 1861: "The point which you raise on intelligent Design has perplexed me beyond measure; & has been ably discussed by Prof. Asa Gray, with whom I have had much correspondence on the subject. I am in a complete jumble on the point. One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed;"
Charles Darwin:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selections, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
And finally, another quote from Charles Darwin: "I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.”
Uninformed indeed.
Right, LifeEthics (if that is your real name...) I'll keep hogging the page! Foy, I very much enjoyed your discussion of Romans 5! You made some good points and I'll go away and chew on em! One thing I'll come back to though is that in your original comment, you said that evolution couldn't be true because death entered after sin. Now, Romans 5 seems to indicate that the physical death refers only to HUMAN death ("death reigned from the time of Adam") which does allow for animal death before this, would you agree? In which case there is no Biblical problem with the process of evolution, per se, up until the first humans evolved.
Believe me, I very much take the Bible over man's word (if you read my myspace blog and corresponding comments, you will note me vigorously defending special creation less than six months ago!) From what I learned at Bible college, in studying the Bible we need to be careful not to apply it to ourselves today until we have properly understood what it meant to the people to whom it was written. I also believe that if God created the world (and He did), then what we see in creation should not contradict what is in His word.
Let's talk first about the age of the earth which is only mentioned in Genesis 1. Are we talking about literal 24-hr days here? We are reading this with 21st century Western glasses on and I don't think the ANcient Near East people would have interpreted it like that. As I mentioned on myspace, we are not considering here the contemporary mesopotamian creation accounts of the era because we (in general) haven't heard of them. (Well, I hadn't) But the Israelites most likely would have been aware of these documents and would have probably understood Gen 1 as a polemic against these. (For more detail see the blog post or wait til later- children crying, gotta go!)
Dear Anonymous (the uninformed one?!)
Interesting quotes from Darwin. Asa Gray was an American friend of Darwin and also a Christian (a real one :-) ). He AGREED with Darwin about the general theory of evolution but also saw in it elements of design. Gray did not believe that acceptance of the theory of evolution led inevitably to atheism.
Of course any quotes out of context can be twisted to bring a different meaning to what was originally intended. Eg did you know the Bible says more than once that there is no God?! (Ps 14:1, Ps 53:1)
Foy, about ticking boxes... To continue first of all about the literal six-day creation interpretation of Genesis. One, how can they be literal 24-hour days of the earth rotating around the sun when the sun wasn't created until Day 4? Also, have you noticed that the writer doesn't even use the words for sun/moon in the account? This is probably because the writer is trying to emphasise the point that even though the pagan people worshipped the sun+moon, God's people were to recognise them as created by Him, subject to Him and doesn't even include the specific names as these were also the names of the gods. The Bible is not a science book; it doesn't claim to be. It uses the language of APPEARANCE that would have made sense to the original listeners. Eg, when Genesis 1 refers to the creation of the moon, the writers calls this a light. But the moon reflects the sun's light, therefore it should technically be called a mirror! Other much more learned theologians than ourselves have questioned how to interpret Genesis 1 since well before the ancient age of the earth/evolution were discovered. Augustine and Origen (theologians in the fourth and third centuries, respectively) wrote considerably about this. John Calvin in the sixteenth century also wrote that he believed God used "baby talk" in the Bible to make it comprehensible to all peoples at all times. "The whole point of scripture is to bring us to a knowledge of Jesus Christ- and having come to know him (and all that this implies), we should come to a halt and not expect to learn more. Scripture... does not, and was never intended, to provide us with an infallible repository of astronomical and medical information. The natural sciences are thus effectively emancipated for theological restrictions." (John Calvin, cited in Coming to Peace with Science, p. 34-35) Note that this was written in 1534, well before the ancient age of the earth and the theory of evolution had even been considered.
I don't believe in a God who is deliberately trying to trick His people by making the earth appear older than it is. ("God is not a man that He should lie...etc) Therefore, it must be that our interpretation of Genesis 1 is at fault. In fact (and I was surprised to learn this), the ancient age of the earth had been generally accepted by evangelicals from the 1800s on. Even people who contributed to the original "Fundamentals" pamphlet series in the 1920s (from where we get the term "Fundamentalist") believed in an ancient earth. Have you heard of the infamous Scopes monkey trials in the 20s? William Jennings Bryan (who was on the side opposed to evolution) admitted he had no problem with an ancient earth. However, it was the Seventh Day Adventists (who many evangelical Christians would consider a little unorthodox regarding extra-Biblical revelation etc) who pushed the literal 6-day creation in the 1920s because of visions that Ellen White, their founder, had.
The evidence for an ancient earth is overwhelming- if only we would take the time to look! In fact the best defence that young-earth creationists have come up with to date is that God has just made it appear old. But why would He want to trick us like that? The alternative creationist defence is that ALL the dating methods used by geologists, cosmologists and biologists are flawed because they want to write God out of the equation. Well, many of these original geologists were Christians! Why would they want to write Him out of the story?
A little bit more of my own story here: how I came to finally accept the theory of evolution is sort of ironic in that I started off getting all the creationist material to prove this once and for all. (I've helped out at Ken Ham presentations, taken copious notes and read the books). However, I increasingly found the attitude of these Christian writers arrogant and the more I learnt about science and how it should be carried out, the more unscientific their work appeared. Then I discovered there were lots of Christians out there, scientists and theologians, who accepted evolution but found it in NO WAY diminished the authority of Scripture.
This is not about putting things into boxes. I cannot accept a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 because that makes nonsense of the text, doesn't take into account the literature of the times and contradicts the evidence in creation which God tells us He made.
Okay, it's now way too late in Ireland to be up- talk soon!
Can someone please point us to the evidence of Evolution. Many have claimed here that evolution is proven by a broad body of evidence but what evidence is there? Either point us in the direction of the evidence or stop saying it's been proven by a large body of evidence.
How can you prove evolution when to my knowledge the changes in a organism occurs over thousands or millions of years.
There should be evidence in the fossil record that shows the previous versions of the organism. But to my knowledge there is no fossil record that proves this.
How can we take a theory on face value if the only place that this theory was tested or viewed was on a small isolated island in the southern pacific ocean.
I'd love to read the evidence, I'd love to see the scientific proof that evolution has occurred in our lifetimes. Can someone provide this to all those who have taken time to comment.
I won't go see this movie as I think that this movie is not the correct venue on this debate.
I can say that I respect everyone's opinions on this matter, that's what makes this type of debate such a fun one.
First off, let me say Clair that I thank you for not being an arrogant argument person. That makes the whole discussion so much easier. J But before I get into your points, I’ll respond to Mr. Ruff.
Clair has already given references to some of these books, and I quote: 3. "Mountain of evidence"... Take your pick: "Rebuilding the matrix" Denis Alexander, "Perspectives on an evolving creation" Keith Miller, "Coming to peace with science" Darrel Falk, "Creation or evolution, do we have to choose?".All written by christians and available on amazon. Or if you'd rather listen online check out Graeme Finlay or Simon Conway Morris's lectures on www.faraday-institute.org in the multimedia folder. The reason we're still talking about this is because we haven't been listening when people have presented us with evidence for evolution.
I also think that I need to bring up a point that evolutionary scientists believe in: Micro-evolution, and macro-evolution. Micro-E can be described as changes within a species. This is documented, and does happen. This is what Darwin saw in the Galapagos – the finches adapted to the situations they were in. Macro-evolution regard a species-to-species change – dinosaurs to birds for example. This is not documented whatsoever, and your are correct Michael, there should be mountains of these transitionary fossils, but there aren’t. The few that are toted as real (archeoptrix, for one) have plenty of defects that point them as fakes.
Okeydokie Clair. Here I come. : P
Regarding days:
And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Shall I go into the “yom” arguement? For all those who wish to know, the Hebrew word that is used for ‘day’ in the Genesis account is the same word that is used throughout the rest of the Old Testament (the New Testament was written in Greek.)
You make some good arguments, I’ll give you that. But I have to disagree with some of your quotes of Christian thinkers. Just as you responded to Anonymous, referring to taking things out of context, I believe that you must check to see if the Calvin quotes were out of context. In 1533 he was studying humanism/law, as his father, who died the year before, wished him too, even though he had studied theology before. Keep in mind he was also only 25, still delving into the Bible. It was only after 1533 that he experienced his real conversion, and started work on the reformation. So that quote seems a little out of context, I would say.
Unfortunately, I can only get a paragraph or two from Augustines work, and I do not want to base my whole opinion of him on those one or two paragraphs, as they could easily be misunderstood or misquoted.
And just so you know, the Greeks considered evolutionary theory. Darwin didn’t ‘invent’ it, he just regurgitated it.
Also, regarding dating methods. Many of these use a process called extrapolation – where one records accurate data for a long period of time, and then projects ahead of time the trend. Extrapolation is used to predict the infamous 0 degrees Kelvin. The thing is, extrapolation is only accurate in very small amounts. For instance, let’s say that I saw that a pipe was underground. I excavated around it, and followed it for 1000 yards, and it continued strait on that line. Now I arrive at a building, that is 10 yards long, placed right on the path of the pipe. I can extrapolate my data, and figure that if the pipe has gone exactly strait for these 1000 yards, there is a good chance that it goes strait for 10 more. But we can’t treat those ten extra yards that we think it goes strait for as fact. We gave to dig under the building to be sure.
Now, it would be foolish to look at 200 feet (or should we say years) of pipe (evidence), and extrapolate it for 3,000,000,000 more feet (years)?? That’s over 568,000 miles! That’s almost 22 times around the world! THAT is foolish thought! Yet that is the basic premise of virtually all dating tools.
I am still wondering how you can accept and believe evidence that seems to point to evolution, yet not accept all the evidence that points to the fact that dead men don’t come alive again. Either you believe the scientific “proof” which points to the Bible being false, or you trust God. You can’t say, “Well, I’ll believe this scientific evidence and disregard this part of the Bible because it supports my purpose, but I’ll trust in God on this big issue, even though no scientific evidence WHATSOEVER supports it. It is just contradictory.
And now I wish I could go through and edit my writing for grammatical crap. But I cannot. Oh well.
Foy
And yes I am Foy, but for some reason I was posted under another account, as this post will probably be too. Public computer problems at work.
Well, well, well, Foy, hope Luke doesn't mind you posting provocative comments under his name... Thanks for saying I'm not arrogant as I find that such an attitude is destructive to the search for truth and the body of Christ. Anyway, I've been busy reading "Three Views on Creation and Evolution" published by IVP, presenting reasons for young earth creationism/ old earth creationism/ evolution. I would thoroughly recommend it to all concerned with these issues as not only are three different viewpoints expressed but also four other writers then comment on each of the three perspectives. Most illuminating. One thing that struck me was the honesty of the young earth creationists. They (Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds) say that "As it is now interpreted, the data are mostly against us. Well and good. We take this seriously. Eventually, failure to deal with that data in a recent creationist scientific theory would be sufficient reason to give up the project... Recent creationists should humbly agree that their view is, at the moment, implausible on purely scientific grounds." (p.51) I am not taking this comment out of context (I can't comment about Calvin; I did note that it had been cited in another book); these guys are honestly admitting the stakes are high against the literal 6-day creation and admit that they "must be willing to change and admit error.. must develop better scientific accounts if it is to remain viable..." and also that old earth creationism "would seem the more rational position to adopt." (p. 73).
I might seem arrogant here but please, please do not use the extrapolation argument to discredit the scientific estimates on the age of the earth. I fully believed that scientists were using flawed dating methods because I read it in a creationist book as an undergrad. (I lent the book to my friend during our course on evolution; she (rightly) tore their arguments to pieces- cringe!) Argon/potassium dating, the immense size of the universe, the speed of light, the geological column- these ALL point to an age for our earth of approximately 4 billion years. Even the number of rings on dead trees and lake sedimentation patterns point to an age older than 6,000 years for the earth. If the number of fossils found in the rocks of the earth (some as deep as 25,000 feet in Mexico) had all been alive at the same time and killed during the Flood (which is the young earth creationist explanation for fossils found in rocks) there would not have been enough room on earth for them all to move. (these facts I unearthed in the book quoted above and "Coming to Peace with Science").
The problem with us taking what we consider to be a natural reading of Genesis 1 is that we are not taking into account what would have been a natural reading to the Israelites. Vern S. Poythress (above book), Ernst Lucas ("Can we believe GEnesis today?" and G. Wenham (www.faraday-institute.org multimedia folder) all talk about this. "...in natural interpretation, the text talks in a straightforward way about what really happened. Unfortunately, this idea of natural interpretation fails to distinguish between 2 quite different approaches: grammatical-historical interpretation, in which one attends closely to the Bible's meanings within the Ancient Near East; and naive-modern interpretation, in which one reads the text only against the background of one's own modern world and life." (p.91, above book) Briefly, the passages in Genesis 1-11, while talking about real events, not myths, are primarily dealing with attacking polytheism and pagan myths, with God sparing us technical details that Israelites did not need to know and would not understand. I could compare this current controversy to that a few centuries ago about flat earth/earth being static being what Bible teaches but might be over-stating my case? We'll see!
Now, about the Resurrection. Science describes what is generally true given relevant evidence. The account of Jesus rising from the dead is NOT told as a story of what is generally true. It was a once- off historical event that left the disciples gob-smacked. The evidence here points towards the truth of this event: empty tomb, no body ever produced, the disciples changed irreversibly from doubters and deniers to those who would risk life and limb to proclaim the truth. I don't see a conflict here.
In the next post, I'll try and explain what convinced me about evolution. Btw I'm willing to be wrong about this!
Thanks for taking the time to respond to these comments as it's forcing me to rethink everything yet again!
"The thing is, extrapolation is only accurate in very small amounts."
The thing is - you are scientifically illiterate.
One in 6, if you're familiar with the scientific process, then you should understand that it's necessary to back your claim.
Foy, I was going to tell you that I (sometimes) edit or check my posts by copying and pasting to a word processing document or my email program -- and then back again. But, the bloggers I want to talk to understand the goofs. (By the way, I have to ask because of the name "Foy": are you from the Stone-Campbell tradition?)
I am a born-again christian, and have exactly ZERO problems with the teaching of the facts of evolution, as facts.
My issue is that those who are proponents of evolution are seemingly incapable of distinguishing between the FACTS of evolution, and the THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS that are derived from it's philisophical roots in naturalism. Just because a virus mutates, and becomes resistant to various antibiotics, does not mean that lying dormant somewhere within it's genetic makeup is the potential to become a more complex lifeform, given enough time, and the right environmental conditions. To hold such a view is to accept something is fact that isn't fact.
Modern evolutionary science, and it's leading theorists -- including Dawkins in this movie -- admit that nobody knows where life came from in the first place. It is just ASSUMED that eventually a natural explanation will present itself. This, my dear atheists, is what we call FAITH (i.e. belief in something in spite of a lack of evidence.)
Now, I ask you, why is it any more comical, ridiculous, laughable, etc. to believe that God is the original cause for the origin of life, than it is to claim that there is no cause and that it just happened, seemingly through MAGIC?
The answer is that it's not. The naturalist's position, when you get right down to it, is just as ridiculous, and unbelievable, and unsupported by any empirical evidence, as the theist's. Said another way, ironically modern evolutionary theory is driven by as much faith as theism. The object of it's faith is different (the natural universe), but it's unwavering conviction in it's miraculous powers is every bit as strong.
If this is true, which it is, then why the problem with ID? ID does NOT take issue with ALL of evolution's claims -- not at all -- in fact, it embraces many of them as absolute fact, as it should. It only takes issue with SOME of the broader claims that evolution makes, and which are matters of faith in naturalism. But, there is the rub. When you challenge people's faith they become greatly agitated, because you are challenging core beliefs. So, evolutionists become guilty of the very thing that they criticize religious persons for.
Phil Stein, and others ID proponents, are simply taking issue with the complete hypocrisy of the status quo. And, also with the tactics employed to silence honest debate, like intimidation, threats, career jeopardy, loss of tenure, etc. Why is it hypocrisy? Again, because both sides operate in faith, but only one side does it openly, while the other does it subconsciously.
I am a born-again christian, and have exactly ZERO problems with the teaching of the facts of evolution, as facts.
My issue is that those who are proponents of evolution are seemingly incapable of distinguishing between the FACTS of evolution, and the THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS that are derived from it's philisophical roots in naturalism. Just because a virus mutates, and becomes resistant to various antibiotics, does not mean that lying dormant somewhere within it's genetic makeup is the potential to become a more complex lifeform, given enough time, and the right environmental conditions. To hold such a view is to accept something is fact that isn't fact.
Modern evolutionary science, and it's leading theorists -- including Dawkins in this movie -- admit that nobody knows where life came from in the first place. It is just ASSUMED that eventually a natural explanation will present itself. This, my dear atheists, is what we call FAITH (i.e. belief in something in spite of a lack of evidence.)
Now, I ask you, why is it any more comical, ridiculous, laughable, etc. to believe that God is the original cause for the origin of life, than it is to claim that there is no cause and that it just happened, seemingly through MAGIC?
The answer is that it's not. The naturalist's position, when you get right down to it, is just as ridiculous, and unbelievable, and unsupported by any empirical evidence, as the theist's. Said another way, ironically modern evolutionary theory is driven by as much faith as theism. The object of it's faith is different (the natural universe), but it's unwavering conviction in it's miraculous powers is every bit as strong.
If this is true, which it is, then why the problem with ID? ID does NOT take issue with ALL of evolution's claims -- not at all -- in fact, it embraces many of them as absolute fact, as it should. It only takes issue with SOME of the broader claims that evolution makes, and which are matters of faith in naturalism. But, there is the rub. When you challenge people's faith they become greatly agitated, because you are challenging core beliefs. So, evolutionists become guilty of the very thing that they criticize religious persons for.
Phil Stein, and others ID proponents, are simply taking issue with the complete hypocrisy of the status quo. And, also with the tactics employed to silence honest debate, like intimidation, threats, career jeopardy, loss of tenure, etc. Why is it hypocrisy? Again, because both sides operate in faith, but only one side does it openly, while the other does it subconsciously.
Clair: I will respond! But not now!Food is being eaten, fingers can type only little. Maybe tommorrow PM, or Wed.
LifeEthics: I do copy/paste. I write on Word 2000 first, then bring it over. I also have firefox, so i can get spellcheck in-browser. But, neither recognize the mixing of 'their' 'there', or 'in'is'it', for example.
As for the name, it comes from several areas. First the nickname that arose out of unique circumstances, as nicknames are prone to do, and also from Foyle's War, a WWII BBC detective drama written by Anthony Horowitz. Absolutely amazing show.
Yes, I know Foyle's war- but I prefer Prime Suspect (Helen Mirren) and A Touch of Frost (David Jason) myself.
To the latest Anonymous (ID guy- well, I reckon it's a guy), Christians who believe in evolution propose that God made a universe capable of evolving. I think the problem with the ID movement scientifically is that it seems to be saying that wherever there is something scientists don't yet understand fully how it could have evolved ("irreducibly complex") then it is assumed God stepped in here. I don't think we should look for God in the bits that we don't understand but in the science we DO understand. As Christians we believe GOd is intimately involved in sustaining His creation. For example, the Psalmist writes
"20 You bring darkness, it becomes night, and all the beasts of the forest prowl.
21 The lions roar for their prey
and seek their food from God."
Now we understand how darkness comes about and lions don't get their food in any supernatural way- but the Psalmist still attributes this to the Lord. The dangerous thing about ID is that as the mechanism for evolution of the clotting function/ cilia etc become apparent you are writing God out of the story when you limit him to the gaps in our current knowledge.
I don't think ID will become widely accepted in the scientific community- not because there is some conspiracy of silence going on, but because it lacks credibility. I'm sorry but the more I study, the more convincing biological evolution is. I can respect Michael Behe for his opinion on the matter because he is a biochemist but I find Dembski and Johnson a little hard to believe because their training is in a different area.
One ID attitude I find very hard to stomach is that Christians who believe in evolution do so because of their career paths (Signs of Intelligence, p.82). This is a disgusting insult to their integrity. If you are trained in biology, I would commend two lectures to you by Graeme Finlay, a New Zealand Christian biologist who talks about Genesis and evolution. http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Multimedia.php (Search for Graeme Finlay).
Actually, Foy, at the end of the above lecture entitled "Genesis and phylogenesis" someone asks that exact question about the Resurrection that you asked. It's after about 1 hr 24 mins if you want to skip ahead to it as I think he gives a better answer than I did!
Genesis 1- According to scholars such as Ernest Lucas and Gordon Wenham, one of the best ways to understand Genesis 1-11 (the pre-Abrahamic history) is in light of the contemporary documents of the day, in which case, Genesis reads as an excellent polemic against these. For example, note the very few occasions where the specific word "create" is used in Genesis 1: They refer exclusively to God creating the heavens and the earth (v. 1) (I might add, nothing here to contradict the theory of the Big Bang), the creation of man and woman in the image of God (not the physical bodies but the spiritual part of us) (v. 27) and the creation of the great sea monsters (v. 21). Now why would the author of Genesis include the creation of the great sea monsters specifically?
Light is shed on this from the discovery of contemporary creation stories from Mesopotamia, where it was written that the gods had to fight and subdue the sea monsters before the world could be created. The author of Genesis appears to be aware of these stories and seems to be making the point that the true God had no need to fight these sea monsters (for the record, not dinos or Nessie, presumably giant squids or whatever)- He created them. Of course the readers of Genesis (or listeners, they probably couldn't all read), would have been well aware of contemporary stories and understood the implications here but it involves a little bit of digging for 21st century know-it-alls to fully comprehend. This is one clue for us that we should not be reading this account of creation without taking into consideration the contemporary writings of the time, which can help with correct exegesis of how this controversial passage of Scripture should be interpreted.
Furthermore, note how the writer uses the expressions, “Let the waters bring forth...” and “Let the land...” etc. This sets no constraints on how the land/ waters etc would bring forth the particular organisms but seems to imply a freedom or permission granted by God for the organisms to be brought forth- however that occurred.
I have previously discussed the issue of death being introduced to the world by sin, which many Christians believe applies to all living organisms. I am still unsure about whether the human death talked about in Romans 5 is physical/spiritual (thanks to Foy’s great discussion!) but I am pretty sure, from the Bible, that plant and animal death was occurring even before sin entered the world, which would be compatible with a theory of evolution. Take, for example, when God warns Adam not to eat the fruit or he will surely die (2:17). How would this punishment have any relevance to Adam if he did not see death occurring already in the plants and animals? It would be a meaningless concept. Also, as I have already mentioned, God in His graciousness, makes Adam and Eve clothes from animal skins to cover their nakedness. I would think from this that there were dead animals from which He took the skins? Furthermore, Romans 5 seems to emphasise that death is for all MEN, (v.12, v.14), but not animals.
I do believe that there is something unique about mankind, of course, but not in a physical sense. We are made in the image of God but is God a physical being? No, He is spirit. Therefore, being made in the image of God does not exclude us a priori from the physical process of evolution. There is a spiritual dimension to mankind, however, that portrays the image of God- our passion for justice, appreciation for beauty, comprehension of morality, universal desire to worship something etc. (These are discussed much better in Simply Christian by Tom Wright). (By the way, I think that discussion of these issues would be a much better way of trying to tell people about Jesus than attempting to bring down a well established scientific theory of how biological diversity came about)
So, this is a very brief discussion of why I think the Bible allows for evolution. Next post I’ll try and present some pebbles from the “mountain of evidence...!” :-)
I am no fan of the creationist. I am no fan of the Epistemological Cartel which has established itself from generations of 'scientists' who have their very own roots in the masonic societies of old. This, a society which spread its propaganda in order to dethrone the hold of the church over people. (thank goodness - someone had to). Its interesting to note that the older dictators of old fell from power because they couldn't supply their people with enough bread, circuses, miracles and mysteries. Under the scientific thumb however, the rule would work. Most people grow to love servitude and never dream of revolution. There is no good reason why the epistemological cartel shall ever be overthrown. Especially when they can back up their arguments with theories that are far easier to believe than some blind faith of the creationist/id. What I find disturbing is that the theory of scientists is that the 'physical laws' of the universe are the ultimate causative factors, naturally these only fathomable to the scientific elite.
Ask yourselves this: Do we really know what causes anything. Causal probability is the bane of the Scientist. We find temporal and spatial proximity to be self-evident, however; the causal connection is lacking. What is perceived in many experiments as A causing B is really nothing more than the juxtaposition of circumstantial evidence.
I am however inclined to believe scientific theory first, before blind faith. However either way, both start out in faith. The scientist just likes to use the word: theory.
We should never, ever, believe everything we're ever told. Its more important to ask questions than argue with conviction.
If you think thats bad - read John Gatto NY State Teacher of the Year 1991 his book? "Dumbing Us Down."
(Same guy that posted about the Epistemological Cartel)
I also wanted to say I really enjoyed reading what Claire and Foy had to say. It was wonderful to read :) Again though - I am not a fan of either 'faith' - Religion or Science (seeing that Science is a Faith.) BUT.. I find it necessary to at least read up on both subjects to be, as it is informed.
- Fan of Free-Thinking.
If I keep boiling this argument down, getting away from the issues, spirituality, dogma, rhetoric, name-calling, theroy and faith, I see this argument boil down to just this:
Math vs English. Formula vs Essay. Logic vs Feeling.
The art of science is one of pure logic, and there by extension, math. I will be the first to admit I do not know the complicated formulae and scientific procedures that modern scientists use to back up Evolution. I just know it exists.
The art of English expresses the emotion, feeling and ideals of people. Religion, spirituality, ethics and morality are all within the domain of words. Their very structure is formed by language. (Thus why translations from one language to another can cause so much chaos.)
People are at once, both creatures of logic and feeling, science and english. The appeal of ID is that it attempts to bring these two aspects of human psyche together in harmony.
In the very first post, this quote was made:
"People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale."
This is simply a misunderstanding. The large majority of people aren't "simpletons". They are simply dominated by their emotive, not Logical psyche aspect. This is why we hear the chorus in school of "Math Sucks". "Im bad at science". "I just dont get this STUFF!!!". Most of us, especially at a younger age, lean much more toward the emotive, lingual side of thinking. TO the vast majority of humanity (not just America, this is representative of humanity as a whole), people ARE dumb; to math, logic and science. Not to say they are simpletons, because art, feeling, ethic and language are just as important to human civilization.
For most people, the formula and theory of Evolution is simply incomprehensible. They look at it and see Greek, which in turn causes them to not learn it, or try and gain some gist (usually false) of it.
However, like most things, when people can't understand it, they lash out at it. A animal instinct we've yet to rid ourself of. In return, the scientific community, a minority by far, has to go even farther in counterattack to defend themselves and their ideas. The result is our present war on this blog and around the world.
With so many threats to our existence, from Nuclear proliferation, to global warming and earths shifting magnetic poles, to asteroids, comets and super nova gamma radiation; we need to keep advancing.
To be honest, where we came from does not matter nearly as much as where we are going.
Let me add my 2 cents to the ID debate, to finish my post.
K-12 is the school's in question in the ID debate. K-12 is NOT a place for discussion of theory and debate. K-12 is where you learn the concrete known-to-be-true facts of science, math, English and humanitys. ID can't be proven to be true. The supporters of ID argue that neither can Evolution. However, Evolution, as in the action of creatures and organisms evolving over time due to Natural Selection IS TRUE. EVOLUTION DOES NOT DEFINE THE ORIGINS OF LIFE. It simply tells us where life is going. In that function there is plenty of scientific proof behind Evolution. Evolution is only theory when extended to try and explain the ORIGIN of life, which humanity does not have a answer for.
So, perhaps neuter Evolution down to what is proven fact, which is natural selection, and make ID open for debate in ~college~ without fear of retribution.
Ok, thats all, thank you for listening.
Hey, I enjoyed the latest Anonymous postings and MJB's too. I'm inclined to agree with MJB when he? said "For most people, the formula and theory of Evolution is simply incomprehensible." Could it be that proponents of ID have misunderstood evolution? It is simply a theory of how biological variation occurred. It neither proves nor disproves God (see D. Alexander, "Rebuilding the Matrix" for more on this). From reading ID material (I doubt the movie will cross the Atlantic) I sense that those who ar pushing ID are doing so because they think that belief in evolution is akin to atheism. IT IS NOT. However, this notion is playing right into atheists' hands as (to them) every further piece of evidence confirming evolution hammers another nail in God's coffin.
This is why I am so passionate about talking about evolution with Christians. We don't have to fear it! I know it is so hard to change a lifetime's way of thinking; I changed "Evolution" to "Evil-ution" in my school biology textbook and here I am defending it!
(By the way, this train of thought is gonna be my dissertation for my Applied Theology degree; hence, the access to all these books)
Same Anon guy from today :)
I liked MJB's/Claire's post. However there is a point in MJB's post that I highly disagree with. Which is, K-12 being the place not to discuss theory. I'm sorry, but the problem today is that kids from k-12 are disturbingly taught not to question what is told them - when in reality they should be questioning everything! here, I'll explain. Bear with me its long.
The more outrageous the deed, the less people are inclined to believe it. - Adolf Hitler.
On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. - Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. The book is a cut-and-dry subject. Soldiers in combat are unlikely to kill. WWII witnessed a firing rate of only 15-25%. However during the Persian Gulf War, the rate reached 95%. 45 years is not long enough to create such a dramatic ’improvement.’ In the 1978 book War on the Mind, Peter Watson revealed U.S. Navy techniques for training assasins. A Naval Psychologist explained that his subjects were instructed using the following symbolic modeling:
"films specially designed to show people being killed or injured in violent ways. By being acclimated through these films, the men were supposed to eventually become able to disassociate their emotions from such a situation. The men were taught to shoot but also given a special type of Clockwork Orange training to quell any qualms they may have about killing. Men are shown a series of gruesome films, which get progressively more horrific. The trainee is forced to watch by having his head bolted in a clamp so he cannot turn away, and a special device keeps his eyelids open. (Grossman.)
Ever heard the word: disensitization?
Mandatory schooling was the love-child of war. Prussia’s army was defeated by Napoleon at Jena in 1806. Prussia understood that they lost the fight due to soldiers thinking for themselves in the midst of combat. Too many refused to fire their weapons upon order. The government wanted to know how to do away with this meddling "free-will" in future generations so they went to Wilhelm Wundt of the University of Leipzig and asked him for help. Wundt suggested that voluntary schooling be tossed out the window. Children are where you start to control a population.
What about: Fragmentation?
School subjects were then scattered into divisions. Facts now marched in rhythm through the soporific minds of the children. Math, History, English, you name it. It was stressed that these subjects be distinct with no relativity to the other. If an instructor overstepped their bounds by dallying with a different subject - they were ostracized immediately. Licensing and Degree’s soon followed suit. These specialties had a purpose. Of which? John Gatto of Dumbing Us Down explains that this was necessary to "tie down the economy to schooling and thus place the minds of all children [in the hands] of a few social engineers.
Once the subjects were divided so too were the children. As Gatto poignantly said:
’this kind of segregation exists nowhere else in our society. In what office setting do you find all the fifty-five-year-olds working in one room? When compulsory schooling existed, the older children were tutors. Children learn much better this way than when they are ordered to sit and listen to their superior.’
Now they must accept the lecture as fact. Kind of like a soldier wouldn’t you say?
During high school we all became acquainted with Pavlov’s conditioning and his irritating bells. Basically, when the bell sounded the dog would drool even if food was lacking. In our case today the children are the dogs. Hopefully, they don’t drool unless their sleeping. Again let me quote John Gatto, "New York State Teacher of the Year" 1991.
"I teach children not to care too much about anything, even though they want to make it appear that they do. How I do this is very subtle. I do it by demanding that they become totally involved in my lessons, jumping up and down in their seats with anticipation, competing vigorously with each other for my favor. It’s heartwarming when they do that; it impresses everyone, even me. When I’m at my best I plan lessons very carefully in order to produce this show of enthusiasm,. But when the bell rings I insist they drop whatever it is we have been doing and proceed quickly to the next work station. They must turn on and off like a switch. Nothing important is ever finished in my class nor in any class I know of. Students never have a complete experience except on the installment plan. Indeed the lesson of the bells is that no work is worth finishing, so why care too deeply about anything? Years of bells will condition all but the strongest to a world that can no longer offer important work to do. Bells are the secret logic of schooltime; their logic is inexorable. Bells destroy the past, and the future, rendering every interval the same as any other, as the abstraction of a map renders every living mountain and river the same, even though they are not. Bells inoculate each undertaking with indifference. (Gatto, Dumbing Us Down).
Between 1807 and 1819 a steady flow of Americans traveled to Prussia to consult the esteemed Dr. Wundt. Wundt believed that wo/man was nothing more than an animal reacting to environmental stimuli. This idea at the time was in the development for the better part of a couple hundred years. Essentially his propaganda stated that there was no ’software’ but only ’hardware’. Apparently the work was amazing enough to garner the implementation of behavioral control within the American Education system. By the early 1900’s all Ph.D.s were trained there.
It doesn’t stop.
322 Ph.D.s were trained for educational psychology; with help of the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations. This all slowly led to behavioral studies which were used to increase the firing rate of soldiers and increase the effectiveness of assassins. Gatto re-iterates:
"Andrew Carnegie [realized] that capitalism was stone cold dead in the U.S. Men like himself, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Rockefeller now owned everything. They owned the government. Competition was impossible unless they allowed it. Carnegie said that this was a very dangerous situation, because eventually young people [would] become aware of this and form clandestine organizations to work against it.... Carnegie proposed that men of wealth reestablish a synthetic free enterprise system (since the real one was no longer possible) based on cradle-to-grave schooling. The people who advanced most successfully in the schooling that was available to everyone would be given licenses to lead profitable lives.... [Y]ou need to look at what occurred during the following two decades of Carnegie’s original proposal. (1890-1910). You’re talking about the realization of Carnegie’s design. These licenses, which now extend to bus drivers and all sorts of people who never had to be licensed are then tied to forms of schooling. So they’ve reserved that part of the work market. Through the cooperation of the government, many of the government positions have very precise schooling requirements. You can in fact control all of the economy by tying jobs to schooling, and therefore you have a motivation for people to learn what you want them to learn. (Gatto)
Anyway a bell just won’t suffice today. But who needs that when you can watch tv? Who has time for a logical train of thought when, once began is being cut off every 7 minutes (average for a commercial interruption). Thank goodness for TiVo.
Who thinks when the answers to the test are multiple choice and not written? The child is led to believe that any set of questions has a closed and definite answer. Who thinks with the ’scam-tron’? Every kid prefers a multiple choice test for a very simple reason - you don’t have to think. That is if they ever did. In a certain test done in the Seattle area; a teacher asked her students for an opinion, written, in lieu of a passing grade. Many left that portion blank. When asked why they had done this, they replied, that they couldn’t come up with an opinion. I wish I knew specifically which school this was, but does it matter - it looks pretty familiar doesn’t it?
The true tragedy is the severe marketing strategies of psychological theories and practices that have been implemented in our education system over the past hundred years. In the year of 1969, 455 psychiatrists were participating in the faculty across America. By 1992, 16,146 reigned alongside teachers. By 1994, they were of equal footing. During the early 90’s an alarming increase in ’mental disorders’ specifically tied to children were listed within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. (Never mind that the treatments for diseases listed in the manual can thus be tagged with a neat compensation package from insurance companies.) Fidgeting, specifically difficulty learning math, or english were now associated with disorders 315.1 and 315 respectively. Nothing taken into account that maybe there was an inadequacy to teaching children to think. Now teachers can label a student with a nifty disorder and receive compensation of $650 annually for the school with ’an incentive to identify more kids with special education needs." Consequently there has been a 1,100% increase from 1987 - 2001 in the diagnosis of children with ADHD. Over 6 Million of our children K-12 are now on mind-altering substances. Compare this to the 1 million abusers on the streets using illegal substances of their own volition. These substances transform the most vibrant child to a quiet drone accepting everything passed its way.Of course there is the colorful 4% (80,000) of children who react violently (and I stress violently) to the dosages. I’d say the treatment for ADHD should not be a cut form of an amphetamine. But then again - I’m not a doctor am I? Ritalin lasts longer than cocaine - and costs approximately six bucks. I won’t even begin on the suicide rate that has ballooned from the 60’s - especially after the ’death education’ program was implemented at Columbine previous to the incidents that occurred there. (This education features stories of death, murder and suicide, after which a survey is ran questioning the children on what they want written on their tombstones."
...
Anyways, I digress, I’m feeling disgusted as I write this - and I can’t continue for tonight. I think.. I’ve said enough anyway. The point is, the techniques of education were created, using behaviorist training (for the Military) and negative neuro-linguistics programming (Just Say No Campaign - which we know has the opposite effect) along with a drugged mind (thanks to our Pharmacy Co’s), to crash/reboot the nonlinear thinking among our nation’s children and encourage further fragmentation. The education system has taught us to do as we are told and believe everything our superiors tell us.
These are books and sites that I pulled quotes from. Forgive me, I don’t really remember how to write a bibliography lol. I figured I need to give credit to the sources of my info.
- Gatto, John Taylor. Dumbing Us Down. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers, 1992.
- Grossman, Lt. Col. Dave. On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. Boston: Little Brown, 1995.
- Lapon, Lenny. Mass Murderers in White Coats. Springfield, MA:Psychiatric Genocide Research Institute, 1986.
- Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR). "Psychiatry, Harming in the Name of Health Care," 2002, www.cchr.org/doctors/eng/cchr-harming.htm.
_____. "Psychiatry, A Human Rights Abuse and Global Failure," 2000, www.cchr.org/failure/eng/cchr-failure.htm.
_____. "Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity DIsorder (CHADD) - What They Aren’t Telling You," 2002.
If your interested check out www.cchr.org and see Citizens Commission on Human Rights. *sighs* I have too much time u_u;;
- M.
I was hoping to appear for two minutes to read the new posts, because time was short. I see that there are 50,000,000 new ones.
Tomorrow then. If not then, then I'll have to wait for Sunday. Then I'll be really behind.
And trust me, I'm not shying away. I'd absolutely love to dive into this. Unfortunately, there are more pressing things in my life than an online debate : ) .
You know, the folks who used to worship Zeus and Hera, or Thor, or the wood spirits, or whatever, well, they didn't think they were crazy either.
Hi, one claim creationists make is that no transitional fossils have been found. This is simply not the case. I haven't the time now to discuss this fully but I did a bit of reading up on Archaeopteryx (as Foy said this had been shown to be a fake) and summarized my reading below: (full details in "Perspectives on an evolving creation" by Keith Miller).
Archaeopteryx- I choose this example because it is probably the most famous transitional fossil and is often discredited by creationists. Archaeopteryx is generally considered to have evolved from a group of small dinosaurs called maniraptorans, (eg. Velociraptor, which features in the film Jurassic Park) as they share many similarities with these dinos, eg- bones of the forelimbs, such as a swivel wrist joint, and similar hind limbs and feet. (In fact, bird-like characteristics such as thin-walled bones and the presence of a wishbone are characteristic of maniraptoran dinosaurs, indicating that bird-like features were widespread within these maniraptorans, although they could not fly.) However, Archaeopteryx was able to fly but differed from modern birds in many ways such as it had a long bony tail, no sternum and its’ vertebrae were not fused. This does lead to a big anatomical gap between the first known bird and modern birds; however, over the last few years fossils of primitive birds called enantiornithes that display features transitional between Archaeopteryx and modern birds have been discovered (Miller, 2003).
That's all for now, good night.
Oh yes, about children's education- they should be taught to think and discern facts.
the assertion that complex living things began and that new higher species are produced through random processes is wholly contrary to common sense. the easiest way to make someone who adheres to that assertion understand its far-fetched improbability is to ask them to explain how any bodily system or organ - respiratory, sexual, gastrointestinal, visual, etc - randomly came into being even if given eons of time to do so.
most americans do not support darwinistic evolution because it is not at all honestly intellectually persuasive, but merely the absolutely required dogma of the anti-religious to explain the origin of all things without recourse to the supernatural or the divine.
Hello Everyone...
I am neither a scientists nor a theologian, but I do notice that those two "titles" are not in the same field of study. Which leads me to my next question: Why is this even an issue. I believe in God. I also believe in science. Why isn't there a movement to explain higher math. People keep looking for answers to the unsolved questions, yet why haven't I heard an Intelligent design argument for that?
I don't want to bash people for their religious beliefs, I just don't understand why some peoples religious beliefs have to effect science which seems to me is a separate thing. On that same note I do not think that it is science's place to prove God doesn't exist (Richard Dawkins). As happens in so many discussions the few extreme opinions are so loud their "argument" drowns out the more relevant discussions and revelations.
Comments:
1. Evolution can not explain the irreducable complexity found in biological systems.
2. Since it has been shown that amino acids can not self-assemble into proteins, there is no known way a cell can be created without DNA. DNA is an information bearing material and the only known source of information is intelligence. Therefore, it is perfectly logical and scientific to conclude that DNA is an artifact of an intelligent designer.
Is it really too much for people (scientists and christians alike) to believe that it's possible for both sides to be right? Believing that species evolve does not discount God. It almost proves that he exists. What better proof that we have free will than it's example in nature? As for the writing of the Bible. Try explaining molecules, DNA and atoms to a person living in Biblical times. The specifics aren't important. The basic story is there and the fact that people in those days couldn't comprehend that things are as complicated as we are just now learning them to be is just God's way of getting his more important messages across. It wasn't important for people to know the specifics about things they didn't have the ability to change. What was important was that they could be aware of the things that directly affected them. As for those who believe a spark and some molecules created all this life on Earth. You might be right. Who am I to argue with anyone else's beliefs? I just think it's funny that no one is willing to admit that they don't really know what happened(is happening?). It's even funnier that people argue about their opinions. Isn't that what having free will is all about? Having an opinion? Fight amongst yourselves if you must. Those are just my two cents...
Anonymous, you keep changing your mind! :-)
To the anonymous who said about amino acids being shown not to be able to self-assemble into proteins... Where is the evidence for this? Back up statements like this with refs so we can check em up. Also, when you reduce God's role to merely putting cells together in the first place, what will happen to Him if scientists do come up with a method for how the cells first came together? You've written Him out of the story and played right into the hands of atheists who proclaim that evolution disproves God. It does not disprove God! But when Christians insists that evolution is a lie propagated by evil white-coated scientists, despite the evidence, they are further alienating scientists from ever finding Christ for themselves.
"most americans do not support darwinistic evolution because it is not at all honestly intellectually persuasive, but merely the absolutely required dogma of the anti-religious to explain the origin of all things without recourse to the supernatural or the divine." I have to disagree with you here. I know I'm not American but my observation is that the reason many Americans don't believe evolution is (a) they don't understand it (b) they think it contradicts the Bible.
Before I get accused of arrogance, (a) I didn't understand the theory myself either until very recently (and still struggle to get my head round some of the concepts because I'm not trained in population genetics, for example)
(b) I totally empathise with their position here; I felt like a heretic when I first came across the research supporting evolution but once I started re-reading the Biblical text for myself I realised that Genesis does not unequivocally support a young earth special creation point of view. (see above posts)
I am so scared for our country... if ignorance is to be the future then I think I need to move out of here.
I believe in science, not dogma, so I guess I'm "persecuting the believers". Wow... just...wow.
I came across this site and I just want to make a few quick comments.
1. No matter far you break down the atoms it will never explain its own existence.
2. Jesus and Christianity can only be of no significance or of huge significance, what they cannot be is moderately significance because of the exclusive claims Jesus makes. (C.S Lewis)
3. The existence of God makes sense of the origin of the universe, the moral law, and the universal burning hunger of man for a deity.
I would also like to say that the claim that God does not exist is an arrogant statement one which implies you have all knowledge of this universe.
I also believe the the belief in God does not contradict science. I see this complex and amazing world created by God and that through science and discoveries do we unravel His design.
I'm a little mad at the clergymen of the 19th century because they are the first to allow the evolution is anti-God argument. We should have embraced what truths come out of the lab and the fossil record.
My comparative anatomy class in college was the most informative. Yes, the similarities and apparent progression can easily be explained by the fact that the same Creator created everything. However, it really does appear that He used evolution, at least to some degree.
Everyone has to go back to the beginning. Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," makes the most sense to me. I'm still convinced that once we agree that something can come from nothing (the Big Bang), we still have to have that Something that caused the event in the first place. Ask me where God came from, and I'll ask you where did the mass and energy of the Big Bang, or whatever its precursors, come from?
The story of our Judeo-Christian Creator God is more consistent than that of Zeus or the Hindus. We humans value Justice and Mercy, Love and Truth. The Christian religion is the best explanation of and example of these big-letter values.
In response to the original post: "Expelled, the movie (It's about censorship)"
Granted, this movie inflames the debate of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, Creationism vs. Darwinism, but what it is claiming to be about is Censorship vs. FREEDOM of expression!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident"...
"that all men are created"...
"that all men are created equal"...
"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"...
"that among these are Life, Liberty"...
(From the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.)
Self-evident truths. Isn't that interesting?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"...
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
"or abridging the freedom of speech"
"or of the press"...
(From the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, aka The Bill of Rights)
Expelled, the movie's significant claim, of concern to all Americans, is that job discrimination is happening and freedom of speech and freedom of the press are being abridged in this country.
For a quick overview of U.S. Law prohibiting job discrimination go to http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
Is there a "gulag" in American academia? Are individuals being discriminated against because of what they have said or what they have written? This is true cause for alarm, not that evolution proponents tend to be atheistic in their beliefs or that this movie is or isn't religious propaganda.
All the arguing going on in the afore-mentioned debate is once again generating more heat than light, and it is distracting from the more important matter of the need for us to get involved in preserving the rights and freedoms that so many have died to secure for us.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' was his attitude now."
S. G. Tallentyre, pseudonym of Evelyn Beatrice Hall,referring to Voltaire. Often attributed to Voltaire.
Just as Evelyn Beatrice Hall chose to use a pseudonym to write and publish her ideas because of discrimination against women in her day and country, Expelled, the movie, is demonstrating that American scientists and journalists and teachers who give any credence to the theory of Intelligent Design or any repudiation of the theory of evolution are learning that they too must censor their own expression - read that: submit to the suppression of their freedom of expression - if they want to keep their jobs or obtain one. This is not liberty. This is the new tyranny, and Expelled, the movie, is rightfully blowing the whistle on it.
It's about censorship, and it's about Americans being discriminated against by their employers.
Attention Everyone! Focus! Let's redirect public attention to the real issue here.
Thank you for your consideration of my opinion, and to LifeEthics.org for providing this forum.
Sorry, Forsythe, I won't allow profanity.
Here's your post, without the last two words:
Timothy Forsythe has left a new comment on your post "Expelled, the movie (It's about censorship)":
Yes, we are all simpletons on some relative scale. Most of us are just too unaware of this fact to do much about it. Even those among us who seek deeper and more satisfying answers must contend with the rest of you who seem to believe that the accumulation of any relevant wisdom ended at least a millennium ago. For that, we should give thanks to an eon of religious autocracy. A brave and foolish few, however, will always persist in search of better answers than "god did it," or "god said so." On behalf of a nation of mental couch-potatoes, it is about time somebody made "Expelled." We deserve it, . . .
Ok godamnit, Ive been reading all these comments, and to me, I think your all wasting your time. Stop arguing geez, this agrument will never end! Leave people alone! let them believe what they want to believe! Im not bashing anyones intellegnce or evidence, I just do not see why you continue to fight over this when no one really knows what happens after you die.
Archaeopteryx- I choose this example because it is probably the most famous transitional fossil and is often discredited by creationists.
Trying to find the so-called "transitional fossil" is a highly profitable business. Sadly for evolutionists this is what happened with "Archaeopteryx".
Xu Xing a vertebrate paleontologist wrote about the so-called new discovery in...
‘Feathers for T. rex?’ National Geographic 197 in March 2000...
After observing a new feathered dromaeosaur specimen in a private collection and comparing it with the fossil known as Archaeoraptor [pages 100–101], I have concluded that Archaeoraptor is a composite. The tail portions of the two fossils are identical, but other elements of the new specimen are very different from Archaeoraptor, in fact more closely resembling Sinornithosaurus. Though I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.’
So it wasn't just creationists dispelling the notion of that particular fossil but an evolutionist too who really didn't want to believe the results but accepted them anyway. But it appears it's still misleading people a little over 8 years later.
I'm not going to leave some wordy message that "proves" that my beliefs are right. Obviously, no matter how many "facts" you put into this comment board, no conclusion is going to be reached. Which, honestly makes me chuckle a little bit. Why do we waste our time arguing about things that once we come to an agreement will really have no impact on how our day, month, year, life plays out? Good people will be good, bad people will be bad, smart people will be smart, dumb people will be dumb (and probably happier than everyone else), your opinions will be your opinions and thousands of minutes will be wasted arguing on a pointless blog that could have been spent helping another person. Or making a new blog about being nice to people and being glad that we have something to talk about. Or even saving the life of some creature which, no matter how it got there, is still there and should be allowed to either live as ID of Darwinism intended.
Can you imagine, in 200 years, us still having the same argument? How much more could we have accomplished? Who cares who's right? We have bigger problems... Or at least more intersting ones to worry about...
After misleading my wife and kids into agreeing to see Expelled, we only made it through the first 30 minutes before my wife and 2 very restless children, ages 4 and 8, deserted me for Horton Hears A Who at the adjacent theatre.
Remarkably, the message was the same as Expelled. The movie tells the story of Horton the Elephant who, on the fifteenth of May in the Jungle of Nool, hears a small speck of dust talking to him. It turns out the speck of dust is actually a tiny planet, home to a city called "Whoville", inhabited by microscopic-sized inhabitants known as Whos.
The Whos ask Horton (who, though he cannot see them, is able to hear them quite well) to protect them from harm, to which Horton happily obliges, proclaiming throughout the book that "a person's a person, no matter how small". In doing so he is ridiculed and forced into a cage by the other animals in the jungle for believing in something that they are unable to see or hear.
I firmly believe in a Social Darwinism… being that my first priority is to the welfare of my family. My time on this earth to do this is incredibly short… So far as ID vs. The Big E… I suppose I’ll find out soon enough as will you. In your own little Whoville, if you want to sit around and theorize about evolution vs. creationism, more power to you. If the lecture includes donuts afterwards, my kids might even sit through it.
If the manner in which I choose to protect and add value to the lives of my family directly affects you and the manner in which you choose to protect and add value to the lives of your family, please let me know. If it involves you and your family desperately needing a hobby, I may not be able to help.
Darwinism has had hundreds of years of propaganda, now it is crumbling. More than half of Americans now reject it, and spend millions countering it because they see it as a threat to the general well being of the average person. If you see the movie, note poor Dr. Provine in the film, obviously suffering from brain cancer, left with nothing but the abyss of his thinking, and the bankruptness of Darwinian influence that robbed him of his onetime faith that could give him hope and comfort in his time of suffering. Of the majority of Americans that reject Darwinism, those that are scientifically inclined in school right now will eventually become scientists (unless of course BIG SCIENCE starts monitoring people's belief systems before they are allowed to enter science as a career), and the "dreaded Creationist IDers" will become scientists doing research with the Design perspective. All evolutionary thinking or conclusions based on physical evidence can be interpreted from a Design perspective (actually science has nothing to do with it; it's the world view or perspective that determines the conclusions of the evidence). So you see the research is coming, but there is much of it already, I can't list it here but it's out there. One of the main points of the movie concerning this is: what if Science proves God or allows research to enter into an area of discovery of reality that just can't be reached with the false perspective of neo-Darwinism. Like discovering mechanisms of reality that bridge the meta-physical with the physical so evident in the almost alien super advanced technologies of the Cell. What's going on down there is so much more than just chemistry and nano-mechanics. It's evident that something so advance is occurring down there that has a meta-physical element just waiting to be discovered, but can't because neo-Darwinism says there is nothing meta-physical that bridges the physical. Exploring it from a Darwinistic perspective is hindering the understanding of it. And hindering the advances that could be discovered and used for things like a cure for cancer, re-engineering of broken cellular systems, utilizing the principles of it that can be used in macro technology of computers, mechanics, etc. etc. You Darwinists are just blind to all this.
Why do you suppose they call it Darwin's Theory?
I wonder how many hungry people could be fed if each 'side' gave everything $ they had?
. . . how many could have homes?
. . . how many diseases could be erraticated?
. . . how many people could get the healthcare they deserve?
Think about it, is any theory or argument over it more important than people?
Is it even worth arguing about?
To those who think discussing what is true or false is useless... Actually the theory of evolution is being used to elucidate specific sites in proteins that co-evolved so that we can work out which amino acids are significant so that if these proteins (eg, Hip and Hop and related proteins (sounds like I'm making these names up but it's true!)) are defunct in individuals and causing sickness, we know where to start the research in looking into cures for them. If people deny that evolution is true, this valuable research could be pulled. So it is of some value.
Michael, you need to do some more research about Archaeopteryx, there have been at least seven fossils found, the first back in the 1800s. Sorry to ruin your conspiracy theory...
I find it funny that some think it a waste of time and money to have an intellectual debate. Man has always been curious and this has led to our greatest discoveries. Do really only want people to talk about what is already determined? How would that advance mankind?
And the silly suggestion of taking the money and feeding the poor? Really? The world has more than enough food to feed all. The problem is corrupt governments stealing from their people. Money doesn't solve this. Don't ask for money; fight for liberty and property rights for the downtrodden in the world. That is a better use of your concern than trying to stop debate and man's curiosity.
BTW, I am really enjoying both Claire's and Foy's posts.
Thanks for your efforts.
I have been a scientist for over 40 years and scientists routinely teach untestable theories in the classroom. For example, string theory is untestable, but it is routinely discussed in scientific circles and in the classroom. The only difference between string theory and intelligent design is that it doesn't involve the possible existence of a creator (i.e., God). Most scientists are happy to teach/discuss fringe, untestable theories as long as God is removed from the equation. As a believer in God, I am not opposed to teaching evolution as long as an honest debate of its many weaknesses and untestable aspects is allowed. The truth is, scientists who question the validity macro-evolution do so at their own peril, because the scientific community is so close-minded. Expelled simply exposes this fact in a humorous way. In my opinion, there is a desperate need for exposing modern scientific education for what it really is: indoctrination and brain-washing of people to disbelieve in the existence God. Three cheers for Ben Stein and his new movie.
By the way, for you hardcore evolutionists, questioning the validity of macro-evolutionary theory does not invalidate or jeopardize the medical advances being achieved by using the finer aspects of evolutionary theory to better understand the living things. Hence, there is absolutely nothing inherently sinister or wrong about questioning the more questionable aspects of evolutionary theory. Such a debate is needed and would be healthy for the scientific community.
Fairy tales and science. Which is which? There are only ten known laws in science. Nature has laws that man does not see or understand. Fairy tales, science, which is which? At any rate, should people really be expelled for thinking freely? What would George Orwell say? I'm going to see the movie, I know that.
Here's an argument for some inexplicable "Agent" starting life while not negating evolution, without reference to the Bible.
The current Big Bang theory states that all matter and energy existed in/at a single point. (This begs the question of where it came from and why, but that's not where I am going with this.) So all matter is at this single point...then BANG...it explodes! What caused or triggered this? No one has the slightest idea nor even has put forth a reasonable theory. Science tells us that something is needed to release that energy, to create that original motion.
For example say there is a round marble on a table-top. It is motionless. Science tells us that it is impossible for it to start moving on its own. It needs a tap of a finger, a breeze to blow through the room, a bump to the table, etc...
We logically cannot dimiss that Something has started the ball in motion; to do so would be anti-science.
Hi Anonymous scientist-for-40-years!
I never ever thought I'd see the day when I'd be called a "hardcore evolutionist"; I love it!
"there is a desperate need for exposing modern scientific education for what it really is: indoctrination and brain-washing of people to disbelieve in the existence God."
Again, I know the situation in the US is different cos you're not allowed teach religion in public schools but in Ireland the theory of evolution is absolutely not presented as an alternative to believing in God. Ironically in the biology text book I used in high school (yes, the same one I changed Evolution to Evilution !) it said in black and white that it was perfectly possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution (of course, like Foy's initial assumption, I guessed they meant it was possible to be a nominal Christian!).
I think it is perfectly acceptable and necessary to point out the need for clarity in areas of the theory of evolution but that doesn't make the theory a load of rubbish. And science (as I said in my original post) will never hold the answers to all of life's questions. My main fear (and the reason I keep coming on here) is that I am afraid of us Christians turning people away from knowing the One who brings true life because we have misunderstood the message of Genesis.
Sean M, thanks for the encouragement- I liked that illustration about the marble etc.
Life Ethics, you finally revealed your hand...! :0)
I’ve finally read all the posts. Going away for four/five days will really throw you out of the loop. Obviously, I cannot comment on everything that I wish I could, but I will try my best.
Someone had made a comment earlier, something to the effect of how grades K-12 are only for teaching solid things, not for philosophical type arguments. I have to say that this is incredibly wrong. The early years of grades K-12 are the years that mold the mind - teaching them the wrong thing, or withholding information or strange theories can severely inhibit their knowledge and ability to defend their own thoughts and opinions. Too many people today are swayed by the slightest appearance of knowledge – think of the infomercial: A person watches, and is told by many people “This product is AMAZING!”. They do not consider anything about the product – just seeing “real” people paid to say good things is all they need to hear to get their credit cards out. Minds need to be molded in the early years – teaching them to think. Show them two different opinions – presented by an unbiased teacher – and have them decide for themselves.
Many of my peers in high school didn’t like to think. One in particular was smart enough to do advanced math or science, but he hated the work. This type of people will be thrown out into the world, and will be tempted and will fall prey to the simplest of things.
As another example, I will use the cigarette. What does the cigarette do for you that is a benefit? It gives some people a contented feeling. But, on the other hand, it kills you. Quite quickly too. It also drains your pocket book. If one person smokes one pack a day from the age of twenty to the age of seventy (50 years), with the average price per pack being $5, he will spend $91,250 dollars!! That is also quite conservative, as cigarettes are going up in price constantly, and there are many people who smoke multiple packs per day. This does not include healthcare for emphysema, or for lung cancer, which is inevitable. This does not just hurt you, it also hurts your spouse and your children, who are exposed to the cigarette smoke, and hurt their feelings - as you will probably die young.
Now, I’m not trying to turn this into a non-smoking campaign – I’m just using it as an example. Just as every person who starts smoking thinks “everyone else is doing it, thus it should be fine for me to do it” too many of today’s people, young and old think “Well, everyone says that evolution is true, thus it must be true” without even looking at the evidence for themselves, and deciding if they too agree with the scientists.
Coincidentally, many people who believe in evolution get money in some because they believe it. Whether it be a teacher or a scientist. They have access to the information, they know more on the subject, thus we must be subject to their opinions.
[I apologize if any of you are teachers. J ]
I also apologize if my sentence structure is crap, as I do not wish to go through the whole post at the moment. Sorry.
Foy
Welcome back, Foy! But it's good you have a life outside the internet too :-)
I think we're all in agreement that children and young people should be taught how to think. (Actually, Richard Dawkins (and I'm not a fan but still he says some good stuff) says, "Children should be taught how to think, not what to think.") However, two theories will only be taught side by side if they are both fairly valid. A lot more research needs to be done by young earth creationists to make their case more credible and therefore taught as an alternative to evolution.
"many of today’s people, young and old think “Well, everyone says that evolution is true, thus it must be true..." Now, Foy, this argument could be turned on its head to say that many of today's Christian young people think "Well, everyone in church says that young earth creationism is true, thus it must be..." What is worse for these young people is that the belief in young earth etc is supposedly linked to being a Christian. You are advocating looking at the evidence and then deciding, yet earlier you expressed doubts that one could believe in evolution and be a Christian. This is not looking-at-the-evidence type thinking. I'm scared for young people because of this type of emotional blackmail. They will either run a million miles from science because they're afraid it contradicts the Bible or else, when confronted with the evidence for evolution, they will mistakenly believe the Bible to be untrustworthy. Because we are linking evolution to atheism!
"Coincidentally, many people who believe in evolution get money in some because they believe it."
Foy, Foy, Foy... *sighs* This type of comment is disappointing from you. I expected better. You are implying here that research scientists/teachers (and I've been both :-)!) believe in evolution because not to do so would jeopardise their careers or affect their pockets. At the moment, I'm out of the workplace on maternity leave so I can honestly say that it has not been for monetary gain that I now think evolution is true. And to suggest that scientists go along with the status quo for money is repugnant.
Could it not be the case that you don't fully understand the theories behind it and so you're unconvinced- but these scientists do have a better grasp of the evidence and are overwhelmingly convinced by it? (And your comment that Archaeopteryx is a fake kinda indicates that you might not have fully researched all the data)
Again, we could turn your comment around and say that maybe Christians are afraid to believe in evolution because they are afraid it will alienate them from their church. Honestly now, if your pastor turned around in the morning and said to the congregation he believed in evolution would your church keep him on?
(Lest I'm misunderstood here, let me re-iterate that I think it is possible to be a committed Bible-believing Christian and also believe in evolution)
For those who say is has been proven without a doubt that we evolved from a single cell with no design, why do you care what others think? Why care about anything, even science. If people want to believe in a "fairy tale" what difference does it make.
Nobody seems to have noted that the trouble with the so-called proof of evolution is that it always involves the kind of changes that occur through natural selection which (just like with artificial selection), reduce genetic information. For example: When we breed dogs for a particular trait, what we are doing is breeding OUT the undesireable traits. The full set of traits were in the original organisms. When this happens, you LOSE genetic information; you don't GAIN any. Through isolation or through survival of the fitest, you can indeed see changes within populations in nature but is that proof of evolution that explains origins? No! because you don't get from dogs to seals in this way nor from reptiles to birds. Going from simple to complex organisms would require vast amounts of new genetic information. Where would that come from? It's the problem of where did the first life come from multiplied by zillions! So the changes we do see within populations of animals does not equal the same type of changes needed to explain origins. THIS IS THE PROBLEM. Saying there is proof of evolution is misleading because the only "proof" is the wrong kind of change--a loss of information instead of a gain! You don't need the Bible to see this!
Yo Purpose, Just because we evolved from a single cell does not mean that there is no God. Teleology is not the only indication of God's existence. Just because I think we evolved from a single cell does not mean that life is futile, nor does it mean that we humans are not made in the image of God. You matter to Him, whether He made Adam and Eve in an instant- or used evolution. Therefore, your opinion also matters and I for one am interested to hear it.
To the latest Anonymous, (are you the same Anon from before?)
When you are breeding dogs, you don't lose genetic information, you select for specific traits, usually recessive ones, that you wish to be expressed. This is not a loss of genetic information; the alleles are still there; they just code for different proteins than before. (You didn't hear that from Ken Ham, did you? He used to do this thing about poodles in his talks.)
If I have correctly understood what you're saying, I don't think you fully understand genetics (not that I do myself either of course!) There can indeed be addition of genetic information, eg by accidental duplication of genes, and, in bacteria at least, by transposons which can carry loops of DNA from one cell to another. Also if there is a point mutation in a gene and a stop codon is destroyed, then a bigger protein can be made (because the DNA no longer codes for a stop).
For what it’s worth, here is a (brief) summary of what convinced me that God had used evolution to produce the biological diversity we see today.
Anatomy: Darwin and Wallace independently developed the theory of natural selection/adaptation, basing their theories on observations of anatomical features of organisms. Darwin observed how finches on different islands had different shaped beaks, a sign of adaptation to their environment. I think we are all agreed that this is some form of evolution (whether you call it micro-evolution or not, I don’t think anyone is proposing that God created each individual type of finch on Day 5). The common anatomical features of animals (eg the similar fore-limb structure) further hinted to common ancestry.
Geology/Palaeontology: During this period palaeontologists had also been discovering many types of extinct creatures, leading them to believe that life had been on Earth for a long time, that it had changed over that time, and that many species had become extinct. Contrary to what I had been told, as I studied I realised that there HAD been transition fossils found: the horse ancestry, Archaeopteryx, even mastodons (relatives of elephants). Then of course there are the hominid fossils (Homo erectus, Australopithecus, Neanderthal). (I know Piltdown Man was shown to be a fake but let’s not ignore the rest of these fossil remains)
Genetics: What struck me was that at the time nobody had any idea about genes, DNA or whatever, and no idea how these adaptations could arise. Then in the last century scientists discovered that all living organisms contain DNA, which codes for all the amino acids. A surefire way for evolution to have been shown to be rubbish would have been if different species had contained different DNA or protein-coding info. But the DNA nucleotides are the same in every species. How amazing was this! This gave a further clue to how the process of evolution could occur. I guess what I was most humbled about (remember, you’re talking to a former creationist!) was that the DNA clades (a way of genetically showing which species are related to each other) clustered almost exactly the way that had been predicted anatomically, with humans most closely related to chimps. (In fact, 98% of our DNA is the same as the chimps!) This is not saying that humans were once chimps but that chimps and humans had a common ancestor. Furthermore, since the sequencing of the entire human genome, it has been demonstrated that there are random insertions of (useless, as far as we know) retrovirus DNA into our genomes at exactly the same points as in the chimps, which further points towards us having common ancestry with chimps. Now I know that God could have designed it this way but why would he have designed it so that it looked like it had evolved gradually?
Biochemistry: I could go on and talk about how many complex molecules such as cytochrome c, when sequenced and compared to different species, give pretty much the same evolutionary tree as is shown by genomic and anatomical comparison.
I know that if you have been brought up thinking evolution is evil and contradicts the Bible (it doesn’t; see earlier posts!) that it’s hard to take all this in but please, please stop and think about what sort of message young earth creationism is sending out to the world.
Why do those who believe in darwinism refuse to admit they are wrong. Doing so does not prove there is a god, only that maybe they need to continue to study. I don't believe in the possibility of evolution-there are just to many holes for this to be science! It is mathmatically impossible! Why not continue to look for new answers? You can't continue to do the same things and expect new results!
Sorry for not replying sooner. My life is quite busy.
You made some good argumentative points Clair, I’ll give you that. Buuuuuuut…as always, I have comments of my own. :D
But a question first: What do you believe actually happened at the beginning of everything? What did God exactly do? What didn’t he do? It would be easier to discuss this if I knew exactly what you believed.
In Genesis, God told Adam and Eve that if they ate from the tree, they would surely die. If death had been present on the earth before, as it would be if evolution had occurred, and if Adam and Eve’s bodies were “heading for the grave eventually”, the punishment of future death seems totally bizarre. It’s like a child being told to clean his room tomorrow, and being threatened that if he does not obey his mother, he’ll have to clean his room. It is a punishment that makes no sense. If God meant immediate death, than he lied, because he did not immediately kill them after they sinned. This leaves only three explanations: One, that death was not already present in the land, making physical death a real threat. Eventual death penalty now makes sense. The second option is the death God was referring to was solely a spiritual death - a slavery to sin; need for redemption. The third option is both – spiritual death and physical death, but this would still require the non-existence of death prior to the eating of the fruit. Just something to ponder…
Now…I must say that, yes, I believe that there is a conspiracy, a withholding of material from the general public about such discoveries that would promote the theory of Noah’s Flood. And I do have examples:
Ghost Ranch, in New Mexico. Hundreds and hundreds of Celophysis dinosaurs thrown around and ripped apart by what the discoverers thought were floodwaters. But, their little, possibly a local flood.
Agate Springs, Nebraska. Thousands upon thousands of 18 foot tall, massive rhinoceroses, again all thrown together. A local flood wouldn’t move them a bit.
Cerro Queso Grande, in Southern Peru – the middle of a desert in the middle of nowhere. 343 baleen whales! 343!!All in one hill that is Roughly 1 ½ to 2 km in length and 150’ high. Intact Baleen (gunkies from inside baleen whales that make them baleen whales, that would normally decompose within days) completely undecayed.
Dinosaur Provincial Park, in Alberta Canada. Previously known to have been only a local flood, with only 90- 100 centrasaurs [ triceratops like dinosaurs] dieing. Now we find that it goes for six miles with roughly 10,000 centrasaurs!
Egg Mountain, Montana. 10,000 Hadrosaurs. 25’ high. All noses pointing the same direction. A big big big current?
Dinosaur National Monument, Utah/Colorado area. 40 different types of dinosaurs, currently 750,000 pounds of bones.
Cleveland Lloyd Quarry. 12,000 bones. 70 different types of animals, including 40 types of dinosaurs. None of the bones broken, gnawed, or visibly weathered.
Tendagure, Tanzania, Africa. In excavation circa WWI. 250 feet of dinosaur bones, mixed with tons and tons of seashells.
Regarding Archaeoptryx, or however its spelt. There was an article in the British Journal of Photography, where the examiners made some points. One, that there was no smooth impression on the mirror image of the slab, as fossils are usually split in two. Some portions of the fossil have course limestone, others fine. And if its in limestone, that means the birds were fossilized underwater. Does that mean that as they fell dieing to the water, they aligned their feathers all pretty like? How many birds are on the bottom of the water like that?
Some quotes: “The Absence of fossil evidence for transitional forms…has been a persistent and nagging problem for evolution.” Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution Now p.140, Harvard University.
“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil…” Dr, Colin Patterson, British Museum of Natural History, Correspondence to Luther Sutherland, quote in Darwin’s Enigma, 1988, pg 89.
There are 100 million fossils, all catalogued and identified in museums around the world (New scientist, Jan 15, 1981, p. 129) And we are arguing over, maybe 5, that are possible missing links? Shouldn’t there be Gazillions?
Foy
Please also remember that my lack of prompt reply in the future is in no respect my ignorance of desire to continue conversation. Or of writing confusing sentences like the previous one.
Just look at the Creation Evidence Museum in Glenrose, TX.
http://www.creationevidence.org/
Here's some evidence.
Hi all, due to time constraints I may end up breaking up this response into smaller segments.
To the last two Anonymous comments, I did look up the Creation Evidence museum as advised. I'd heard of the dino/human footprints that are featured on the site before but they've been shown to be fakes. Even the Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society don't believe this anymore. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/paluxy.htm
So... I kind of got disheartened with the museum then and don't really trust their info, sorry.
Foy, if you give me refs about those examples that you believe support global flood, I'll look em up.
Meanwhile, back to the Bible, if it was an extremely rough global flood causing plate tectonics etc afterwards then:
(a) how was the dove able to bring back a fresh olive leaf?
(b) the writer of Genesis describes where Eden is to his post-Flood readers, but if it had been such a catastrophic flood, surely the location of Eden would no longer be recognisable?
(c) the Hebrew words translated "all the earth" ("kol erets") do not mean "the whole globe" but usually is used to refer to local land or all people. (List of Biblical references here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html) The Bible does not constrain us to believing in a global flood. If you choose to believe it, fine, but don't be misled into thinking that the Bible says it was the whole planet.
You asked exactly what I believed happened in the beginning. I believe God created something out of nothing which developed into the universe. I don't know if he stepped in to create the first cell but I do think evolution is the best explanation for the biological diversity we see. I don't claim to know all the answers but I do NOT think that the community of geologists, biologists, cosmologists, paleontologists are out to lie to us all. In fact if you do believe that it makes me very sad.
I'm going to cut and paste a quote from Augustine which we would all do well to heed:
Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]
Foy, you know the Bible well. And I believe you love the Lord. But I think the young earth creationist position you hold (and I held six months ago) is damaging the credibility of Christ. I know this because someone I love has rejected God/the Bible partly because of this.
I don't think the Bible was ever meant to be a book of science and when we use it incorrectly like this, we miss the true meaning, we miss out on the amazing wonders of how God brought the world into being and we alienate millions of scientists from Christ.
Next instalment...!
About transition fossils. I'm just rehashing (is that a word?) a segment of "Coming to Peace with Science" which I lent to someone in Costa Rica, so I can't check this word for word.
Anyway, Falk explains in this book about the process of fossilization. First of all, it is an extremely rare event as conditions have to be just right. Also, only organisms with some hard parts to their bodies will be fossilized. So the fact that we have any fossils at all is quite amazing. Also the theory postulates that species under environmental pressure due to isolation or whatever would be rapidly evolving, leaving less opportunity for these fossils to be produced.
About Archaeopteryx being a fake, yes, the Journal of Photography did make such a claim but these have been refuted. Repeatedly.
Eg, in Keith Miller's excellent book, "Perspectives on an Evolving Creation" and on this website: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html for those of you who don't have easy access to the books.
Basically the fossil record in mainly dominated with marine life rather than dinosaurs or vertebrates. There is all kinds of fossils for algae or shellfish, while there is very little dinosaur fossils which is not surprising considering there was a great flood.
This entire blog is exactly what the classroom and laboratory experiences for students, teachers and scientists should be like -- the free exchange and examination of ideas. It appears to me, though, that it's that very freedom the "real scientists" are most afraid of. Don't dare question their authority to know what's true or possible, because they are, after all, smarter than everyone else. From what I've read here, and heard and observed elsewhere, those "real scientists" are too arrogant to even contemplate the possibility that they may be wrong (or at least not fully right), nor do they possess the open-minded curiosity to follow the data when it leads in a direction opposite of evolution.
What I found most interesting in the movie was the discussion of the intelligence we now know is contained within the simplest cell. Where does that intelligence come from? Without it, it doesn't work and could never have reproduced or multiplied itself to the next stage. To explain this problem with their theory, one of the Darwinists suggested that our life here may have been seeded by a super-intelligent species from another world (and he accepted that possibility without batting a dubious eye, yet to him ID is a laughable proposition), but that that species "would have had to have evolved into existence following the Darwinist model", or some such nonsense along those lines. It's as if they admit we couldn't have come into existence by chance and need some sort of intelligent instigator, yet that life form -- from wherever -- doesn't? Well, if we couldn't have begun without being seeded by something more intelligent, wouldn't the same be true for them? And those who seeded them? And so and so on? Eventually, the very existence of -- and absolute need for -- intelligence within the most basic of life's building blocks must point to a creative, intelligent source.
But, maybe I'm just too dumb, naive, simpleminded, religious, dimwitted, or whatever other childish names our elite thinking class can come up with -- as I see in so many of these posts -- to understand. I guess that's why I can't put my tiny little brain around man-made global warming. Oh, but then that's another area where the debate is over, isn't it, and if you don't agree, you're not a "real scientist". Wow. I think I see a pattern.
Cripes I'm busy. Give me a week, maybe three.
I'll be baaaaaaaaaack......
"follow the data when it leads in a direction opposite of evolution"
Data? Data? Is this Star Trek? I don't see any data. Can you be more specific?
"the intelligence we now know is contained within the simplest cell"
Teh stuupid - it burns.
Strange how "Christians" have become total liars to promote their beliefs. Well, not really.
If not liars, then they will surely agree that ID could describe, Buddah, Allah, or indeed Zeus, since the "science" doesn't say WHICH intelligence. After all of their propaganda, it isn't 'intelligent' design, but BIBLICAL design. Or are the supporters of ID believers in Thor?
Sorry, onein6billion, I meant to say the "information" we now know is contained with the simplest cell. Not intelligence. Typing too fast. But the question remains, where did that information -- where did the information within our own DNA -- come from?
Why is there something rather than nothing? Evolution does not even try to explain it. The Big Bang tries to explain it but leaves this gaping hole: Where did the laws of physics come from? They are not nothing. They are a thing of incomprehensible complexity and awesome import. Who or what crafted these amazing laws?
It all leads me to this inescapable deduction: Something somewhere had to have in itself the power of self-existence. Let that sink in.
The Bible claims to be a self-revelation from an entity who has existed eternally, and who created all else. That is exactly what we should expect of the true self-existent entity. Find me a better explanation of why there is something rather than nothing, and I will consider it seriously. But clearly, what atheistic scientists offer is not the answer.
"But the question remains, where did that information -- where did the information within our own DNA -- come from?"
Two words - abiogenesis followed by evolution.
"Find me a better explanation of why there is something rather than nothing,"
That's a stupid "why" question and there is no answer. Obviously the universe exists. As to "why" it exists, only someone who has faith in one of a hundred religions tries to pick a silly answer.
One, It's not a silly question. All societies have asked "Why am I here?"
It's very legitimate to ask, "How did something come from nothing." You always - always - end up with "In the beginning . . . "
You believe that the original appearance/creation of matter and energy has an explanation that is natural to the Universe and which does not involve a Creator. Some very not-silly people believe the origin is from outside our natural universe, or super-natural.
Somehow, in the beginning, everything came from nothing.
"All societies have asked "Why am I here?"
So what? That does not mean that it's not a silly question. Take the loooong view. In another billion years, what will it have mattered whether or not the human race ever existed? We aren't "going anywhere". We aren't going to the stars. We aren't going to explore this galaxy. We aren't going to "ascend". We aren't going to live forever. Hmm. Of course there is a small chance that will will create self-repairing, reproducing machines that will live nearly forever. "Robots Return" by Asimov?
You must believe one of two things:
A. Physical matter is eternal.
B. Something other than matter is eternal, and that something created matter.
"You must believe one of two things:
A. Physical matter is eternal.
B. Something other than matter is eternal, and that something created matter."
Nah. It seems possible that protons will "decay" in a few hundred billion years. And there is nothing other than matter, dark matter, and dark energy. So I certainly do not have to believe either of your supposedly exclusive two things.
Deleted some anonymous' claim that children are no more miracles than eating and excreting.
Maybe *anonymous'* posts resemble excrement, but children are always miracles, IMNSHO.
"but children are always miracles"
Absolutely. Once a month an egg gets a chance to be fertilized by only one of millions of sperm. So the odds of any particular person being born are about 20 million to one. So of course that's a "miracle".
On the other hand, there are 6 billion people on this Earth and a lot of them are behaving in a manner that might result in a birth some months later. So eleventy-dozen thousand children born every day might seem to make such an occurrence rather "normal" instead of "miraculous".
This is great. The Creation\Evolution debate is moving forward into the Main Stream. I even heard it mentioned on The View. For too long, people have been spoon fed Darwinism without questioning the accuracy or existence of any true evidence.
I like how Darwin supporters claim 'tons of evidence' and yet in this blog or anywhere no evidence is specifically mentioned. That is because even Darwinists aren't really sure what evidence exists; they're just sure it's out there somewhere, and that's good enough for most of them. Do yourselves a favor, do some research.
I'll help. Answer these questions.
1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia,
etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living
matter?
7. When,where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction
reproduce?
If you cannot answer these questions, do not feel bad. No evolutionists can without far reaching and unprovable theories.
As much as I enjoy this debate, ultimately the Creationist motivation should not be to win an argument but to help people find God.
There is a God who created this universe by supernatural means. He created Mankind in his image. He loves his creation. He gave us the ability to communicate with him and to have a relationship with him. Instead of programming us to obey him, he gave us free will. We are offered salvation from this world as a gift. It isn't something that can be earned. Accept or reject. It's that simple. You don't have to be perfect (no one is).
I would encourage anyone who reads this blog to think for yourself. If there is evidence, search it out for yourself.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home