“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” isn’t a Hollywood movie.
This is real life in America, the land of the free…and the home of the brave. It isn’t about “religious nuts,” it isn’t about politics… and it certainly isn’t only about science.
It is about America, and the unseen silent hand of repression that is taking hold of science, in our public universities and government laboratories.
That said…we are overwhelmed with gratitude…and hope…to see the outpouring of free, no-holds barred debate that has been generated. It has energized us.
With but one look at the over two thousand or so posts to date – you can see that our film’s central theme has been validated: such controversy as you see displayed here isn’t really only about science, is it? ☺
The scientists and educators in this film who are being kicked around and whose lives and are being destroyed by a cadre of elite “antitheist” scientists aren’t Hollywood actors – they are real people, who have dedicated years of their life the pursuit of knowledge, and the pursuit of scientific evidence, no matter where it leads.
These are not folks who have devoted their lives to chasing the almighty dollar, or to pursuing fame and celebrity. They are better people than that. They receive relatively very little for their dedication and demanding, hard work.
For them…the “silent hand” of academic suppression is all too real.
Sadly, this movie doesn’t end well, for them. They go home to families that need to be fed, and live in houses that are mortgaged and children who hope someday to attend college themselves.
But because they have been “outed” as dissenters who question
aspects of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution…the silent and unseen hand of
academic intolerance simply “unemploys” them. Denies them tenure. Ends
their careers, without so much as even an explanation as to why.
For this – for their belief that science can be furthered by a
presupposition of design – Big Science’s elite brands them as heretics
and their careers are systematically destroyed.
They are not – I repeat not – simply throwing up their hands and
declaring, “God did it.” The accusation that they are substituting
religious explanations
for scientific proof is an absurd accusation, and an insult to the
intelligence of these highly educated and disciplined men and women.
For the “thought crime” of believing that life is purposeful, and designed rather than a random “accident”, the unseen hand simply dismisses them.
Now – I want you to consider carefully what such repression would have meant to the scientist who said this, in 1941:
“Science can only be created by those
who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and
understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere
of religion…The situation may be expressed by an image: science without
religion is lame, religion without science is blind”
–SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, AND RELIGION: A SYMPOSIUM, 1941.
It was Albert Einstein. The “silent hand” of Big Science would today give Albert Einstein the flick. He’d simply be written off as a “religious nut.” No question about it.
So - imagine explaining to Albert the “definition” of science and the “box” that it belongs in. The one that has no room for “intelligent design.” Try telling him that he “doesn’t understand” science.
This really should not be happening in America.
These hard-working men and women of science today simply do not deserve the shabby, shameful treatment they are receiving as part of Big Science’s new agenda. It is an agenda that has nothing to do with science.
It important that we all rise to defend them from unfair suppression and defend their right to freedom of academic inquiry, wherever the evidence may lead them.
October 19th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
“It isn’t only about science.”
This is so true. When people debate religion it’s interesting to see how little concrete facts or reasonable points actually matter — to either side of the debate.
Great blog, great project, keep up the good work!
October 19th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
My take on ID here.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
quoted from blog here; “These hard-working men and women of science today simply do not deserve the shabby, shameful treatment they are receiving as part of Big Science’s new agenda. It is an agenda that has nothing to do with science.”
Of course it has nothing to do with science. And although I have no idea what this documentary will reveal, I can only imagine the shabby, shameful treatment they are receiving. And for anyone to post that these hard-working people have nothing that wants to be heard outside of Darwinism, are very closed minded and don’t care about freedom of inquiry or what legitimate science is out there that point to design.
So what if something may point to design? Would that be so terrible? Would that mean that atheism isn’t as strong a case as Darwinism? Their agenda is to suppress everyone in the world to atheism, and to push God or a designer out of the picture totally. It’s like communism, and our country is no longer democratic. The ACLU will keep the education system and the public on a unilateral thinking mode, at the expense of our children. They and the Darwinian atheists seem to not care about our future, our children and their future or the world at all. They will continue bullying, and ruining lives outside of Darwinism, and they don’t care at all.
I think that these thoughtless atheists/Darwinians are the ones who should be ashamed. How dare they deceive and continue to deceive. I’d like to know how they sleep at night, not caring at all. And it’s so sad, they actually have ppl that believe their ideas of imagination only. Cause Darwinism is only fairytale and nothing more. It’s science fiction.
It breaks my heart to see this STUPID DARWINISM TAUGHT AT ALL!!! They shove macro-evolution down everyone’s throats with no proof at all to support that or anything else. There was no oozepool, no BIG BANG!!! They continue to make up stories to justify their religious beliefs. Many scientists, who studied and took evolution, to become a scientist/doctor, in whatever field, have came to the conclusion that Darwinism does not have any proof what-so-ever for their idiotic so called theory. And these scientists are just as qualified as the Darwinian scientists. Except these scientists turned their backs on Darwinism, because Darwinism is just a religion that promotes atheism.
Even when evidence is presented, the Darwinians jump in ASAP to dispute or debunk real scientific facts and evidence, because they dare DO NOT want to be exposed for the atheism they are pushing onto the world.
And I can tell you right now, atheism sucks! The attitudes that come form this religion is nothing but a shameful waste of a human being.
And its also shameful ppl cannot communicate at all. It’s the atheist to throw the first hateful word into the bunch that believes in a God or a designer. It’s amazing how the atheist, as I said before, can throw aside morals, and use words that cut sharper than broken glass. As Rodney Dangerfield used to say, “No respect at all.” Oh, you atheists can be respectful, but piss you off, and see where that respect goes. The language and words used to express hate certainly can make their way into the world. The atheist becomes selfish and think me, me, me.
No one has to believe in a God who did create the heavens and the earth, but we sure could use a little more God in this world.
And if anyone wants to say ‘Show me proof of ID, how is it scientific? Etc., etc.’, well, do a google search or use your fav search engine and search ID, intelligent design and even creation science. Do your own homework please. Before you decide to put down another idea, explore it first, hopefully with an open mind. I have explored Darwinism, even was taught it in high school. I don’t believe in Darwinism at all. And I don’t care what evo scientists want to say about it being true or factual. They must really believe, have much faith in it, or know it’s a hoax and do not care. Because if these scientists really opened their minds, not suppress where the evidence leads, may actually see other ideas that are great possibilities to our real origins. It’s also amazing how they let their intelligence be weaseled into a religious faith of Darwinian atheism simply because they do not want to believe in a God/Designer.
Either you believe in Darwinism or a Creator. These two do not go hand in hand.
~M
October 19th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
“These are not folks who have devoted their lives to chasing the almighty dollar, or to pursuing fame and celebrity.”
And yet some IDists do pretty well. Here’s what Dembski has to say about ID’s perks:
“For a movement that is in its death throes, I, as one of its principal advocates, am looking at more speaking engagements than I can fulfill and very generous honoraria (I suspect more than Ken Miller receives).”
“My books sell well.”
Pretty good for a mathematician who has contributed only 1 or 2 papers to the math literature.
And let’s not forget the many millions that the Discovery Institute has received and passed on to IDists, including Dembski.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
“The accusation that they are substituting religious explanations for scientific proof is an absurd accusation, and an insult to the intelligence of these highly educated and disciplined men and women.”
Can we assume that your movie will expose this absurdity by finally revealing a tested scientific ID hypothesis that explains the accumulated data better than established theories? Keep in mind that scientific hypotheses cannot be formulated from nebulous philosophical terms.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
“With but one look at the over two thousand or so posts to date – you can see that our film’s central theme has been validated: such controversyreationis as you see displayed here isn’t really only about science, is it?”
Controversyreationis? Is that anything like cdesign proponentsists?
And you’re right, it isn’t just about science. It’s mostly about pseudoscience and fraud. If those words accurately characterized ID — and I realize that you think they don’t — would you consider the reactions by science’s “elite” to be justified?
October 20th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Absolutely. Is free speech available only for those who tow the politically and scientifically correct line? Back in the 1850’s there were plenty of scientists and politicians and even religious folk who swore that a black man was inferior to a white man. Wow, I think that some of these folks are still alive. At least their theories are.
Give this movie a chance. Watch it with the open minds you claim to have.
October 21st, 2007 at 1:00 am
cheryl: “Absolutely. Is free speech available only for those who tow the politically and scientifically correct line?”
Nope, free speech is available for everyone. But the scientific enterprise is not a free-for-all — it’s a meritocracy.
October 21st, 2007 at 5:02 am
Scientists don’t hold on to evolution because they want to be atheists. That’s obviously absurd. They accept evolution because of overwhelming evidence everywhere they look.
Christians don’t suport ID because of evidence. There is none. They support ID because they want to hold on to God. That much should be obvious to anybody in this debate. Think about it.
October 21st, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Wiggy,
Interesting argument. Question for you… Since when do Jews consider themselves Christians? “STEIN?” Get it? Not a Christian name that I’m aware of my friend. And by the way… Religion has nothing to do with I.D. If you did even a little research you’d find that MANY I.D. scientists are agnostic.
I think the new blog hit the nail on the head… This subject matter is about far more than Science. Can we say “prejudiced, bigoted suppression” friends?
October 21st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
The natural laws of information show in a purely scientific way that:
1. no material entity can create an immaterial entity
2. information is a non-material entity
3. information is the non-material basis for all biological systems
4. there is no information without code
5. every code is the result of a free will agreement
6. there is never new information without a sender which is intelligent and with a clear will
7. every information can be followed up to the intelligent source
8. the meaning of a set of symbol is a spiritual process which needs intelligent
9. from statistical processes one cannot generate information
…
Evolutionism is a malsane virus which blocks the Scientists in properly interprete their observations in a clear way.
Unfortunately, almost all the scientists which deal with evolutionism work in cultural “Silos” and they do not approach the issue from a information theoretical basis.
If they would do so, they would realise that evolutionism is fundamentally biased.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:01 pm
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hse5BIx-Eltfe-LgCdXhSNXewsAAD8SBSHV01
”
“We’d let them finally do it, but we’d put them through it. We’d say, ‘It should be Stein/Franken because Ben is older. And that’s the proper way to do it.’ And they’d say, ‘But, but, but we can do it as Franken/Stein.’ And I’d go, ‘Oh no, I understand why you’d want to do that, but we prefer Stein-Franken.’”
”
You might not have an alternate option, your’re getting drafted, first.
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:08 am
ID has nothing to do with religion?
I would direct people to read about the ‘Wedge Document’ which is a plan to promote ID authored by the Dicsovery Institute (A federal court recently ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues “demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions”).
The Wedge Document outlines a public relations campaign meant to sway the opinion of the public, popular media, charitable funding agencies, and public policy makers. According to critics, the wedge document, more than any other Discovery Institute project, demonstrates the Institute’s and intelligent design’s political rather than scientific purpose.
The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph:
“To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies”
“To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God”
You can read all about it on Wikipedia. Check it out and then see if you can say ID has nothing to do with religion with a straight face. One side of this argument between science and religion is being dishonest here and I really don’t think it’s science.
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:38 am
For those of you who might be wondering, Luca is paraphrasing the basic theorems of the creationist Werner Gitt’s paper In The Beginning Was Information.
In section 3.2 starting on page 45, he discards Shannon’s definition of information because it lacks “meaning”, then proceeds to use a definition of information that relies on “meaning” or “semantics”, and introduces W (for Will) as another entity to be considered.
Given the difficulty of measurement of the quantities in the paper (section 10 in his paper merely provides suggestions, with little way to figure out quantities that are not zero or one) and the requirement to accept the premise in order to lead to the conclusion, Gitt’s theorems are not going to be terribly useful in this debate. The reliance on the Bible is also a bit problematic here as it cannot be used as a direct support for Intelligent Design, which disavows knowledge of, and indeed will not investigate, the identity of the Designer.
Gitt a priori discards any materialistic cause:
Jason Rosenhouse’s encounter with Werner Gitt at the Creation Mega Conference at LU is instructive, and finds that Gitt does not properly address the known productive biological information source of duplication-plus-variation (be it mutation or crossovers in egg and sperm DNA).
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
No. It’s not the “silent hand” it is the “invisible hand” of the free marketplace of ideas. Intelligent design wasn’t expelled, it’s stock simply crashed.
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
There is no evidence for intelligent design. Certainly people can find holes in the theory of evolution as it has yet to have been perfected, but that isn’t evidence for intelligent design.
Just because we do not know how something was able to arise in organisms does not mean that the thing in question is evidence for god. This is very similar to how if we cannot make sense of one piece of evidence in a murder trial we don’t just immediately say that god killed the man, especially when 90% of the remaining evidence points to a single suspect. Human are fallible and scientific thought takes that into account. We cannot know everything ever, but we can take the evidence of the world around us and come to logical conclusions.
One of the few things that I think could actually be evidence of an intelligent designer is something like this: http://www.xkcd.com/10/. Saying that because we cannot explain it therefor god (or some mysteroius unnamed, unknown, untestable, “Intelligent Designer that isn’t the god of the Christians and Jews *wink wink nudge nudge”) did it is one of the worst false dichotomies anyone can come up with.
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:56 pm
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:03 pm
“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere…. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”
- Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science,” New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930
For more, see:
http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Einstein-on-a-Personal-God.htm
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Great interview on O’Reilly tonight, Ben! Thank you so very much. I sent my own personal email to my friends and family to watch the trailer and the O’Reilly interview, so it would spark their interest in the movie. They thought it rocked. I concur. God bless you, sir. Kathie
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:38 pm
The Templeton Foundation, which by no means takes god out of any research, and in no way persecutes scientists for their theism, has distanced itself from ID.
In a statement, they said - “Does the Foundation support I.D.? No. We do not support the political movement known as “Intelligent Design.” This is for three reasons 1) we do not believe the science underpinning the “Intelligent Design” movement is sound, 2) we do not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge, and 3) the Foundation is a non-political entity and does not engage in, or support, political movements.”
As stated in a prior post, everyone visitng this blog should read the Discovery Institutes’ Wedge Plan. See Phase II- Publicity and Opinion Making Item # 9 - Documentaires and other media productions. ie - “Expelled”
As to the incredibly uninformed poster above who stated that “religion has nothing to do with ID” -
Here are a few statements from Philip E Johnson, considered the father of the intelligent design movement.
“Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.”
“This isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy.”
“The objective (of the wedge strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to ‘the truth’ of the Bible and then ‘the question of sin’ and finally ‘introduced to Jesus.’”
ID is not science, this movie is not about science, its a pernicious attempt to promote a narrow, extreme christian agenda.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:20 pm
“Luca Says:
October 21st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
The natural laws of information show in a purely scientific way that:
1. no material entity can create an immaterial entity
2. information is a non-material entity…”
So I can’t create this post then, which is information.
Don’t make “laws” up.
I LOVE IT SO!
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
After reading many of these entries, I’ve made a few “scientific” observations:
First- It seems as though most of the postings are against any notion of Intelligent Design. This does not lead me to believe that it is any indicator of popular opinion, as multiple polls indicate that Americans (and in fact most of the population of the world) do indeed believe in some type of higher power. No…rather, it confirms my belief that liberals just love playin’ on the computer!
Second- I find it amusing that these disbelievers of ID love lashing out against Christians when the creator, star and driving force behind this film is someone of the Jewish faith! This confirms that the only group that’s safe to persecute these days is Christians. In fact, it’s chic.
Science has done a great job of explaining the existence of the Universe. In fact, I believe in evolution and the Big Bang theory, as most contemporary Christians do. Science has done a great job of explaining nearly everything, all the way down to a super condensed ball of gas floating in an infinite sea of nothingness.
But, I’d like to state a simple truth; that’s as far as science and our finite minds can go. We cannot explain where that super condensed ball of gas came from, why it suddenly decided to explode, how it eventually created our consciousness and where it will eventually take us.
That’s where faith comes in.
God bless you Ben.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:43 pm
“Ninety percent of [contemporary scientists and philosophers] see their principle task as that of beating religion out of men’s heads. … We are far from being able to provide scientific basis for the theological world view.”
Kurt Gödel
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Seven reasons why Evolution is a fraud.
1. It’s not science. You cannot observe, test and repeat the ever-changing ideas that are little more than wild speculation.
2. It devalues real science. Chemistry, physics and biology don’t have the same problems of legitimacy because they are real sciences, not philosophical wannabes trying to appear legit.
3. Complex engineering. Do you ever drive past a skyscraper and think to yourself ‘Gee, I guess billions of years of random chance could have just as easily assembled all of that glass, steel and concrete as well as a team of engineers, architects, construction workers working from blueprints? Of course not! But that’s what evolutionists would have you believe in when it comes to living organisms.
4. Genetics. The programming code of life, according to evolutionists, is just a series of biochemical accidents and mutations. If you believe this, I have a bridge in New York that’s for sale. The infinitely complex engineering of this code means that it did not come about via ‘natural selection,’ aka random chance.
5. Mathematically Impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds.
6. Evolution is a religion. Yes, evolution is the faith of atheism because it replaces God with man. When you’ve conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science.
7. Racism. This is the ugly secret that evolutionists don’t want to discuss; that Darwin, Huxley and many of the early advocates of evolution stated publicly that Asians, Africans, Australian Aborigines and other non-white, non-European groups were evolutionary throwbacks. Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, was a pioneer in the early field of eugenics which was the study of skills by ethnic groups. While Galton’s work was relatively harmless, Hitler’s work — to synthesize natural selection by exterminating a race of people — was not.
We as human beings have to stop taking the theories of men and woman as scientific fact.
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Ah, more god-of-the-gaps filler for our beloved theists neighbors.
Until science fully explains it, religionists of all creeds will cling to it as proof/evidence of the God they happen to fancy.
As recorded history has shown repeatedly — every God has enjoyed one constant: His followers will bend their views to shove him into all scientific gaps… without fail.
As our ancestors once believed that the movement of the sun and the stars were the acts of God; scientific research has since shown otherwise. Or, our ancestors once believed that the earth was only a few thousand years old; scientific research has since shown otherwise.
Ben is an intelligent guy (the other folks behind this film, I can’t speak too)… but most “evolutionists” don’t care if you teach creationism (or ID, call it what you will) — as long as it is taught in the appropriate place… a RELIGIOUS class or at home or at church.
ID/Creationism is NOT science. It is religion.
Posit a theory. Test it. Alter theory as required. Repeat. That is science. ID/Creationism doesn’t meet those simple criteria.
But I digress… I can’t wait to see this film as it certainly has a built-in audience — Mel Gibson can surely speak to this w/ the hundreds of millions he made on his Jesus film.
And one final note:
It looks as though there is evidence that the producers of this film are continuing the ID/Creationism line of flat out lying in any effort to make their point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
Cheers, fellas. It doesn’t work in the science class… so lie to a bunch of scientists in order to get them to sit down w/ you… then edit your interview to suit your needs.
How very scientific of you.
Isn’t this the type of things your are trying to eXpose in your movie?
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:11 pm
My 8th Grade Science Teacher was breathless about experiments with Drosophila in Genetics. Just KNEW transitional species would emerge! Four decades of massive irradiation later - still just Fruit Flies, minus a few features, plus a few stripes and polka dots. Whoopie. Years ago, I worked at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. HPRR Fast Burst Reactor (part of DOSAR)was essentially a “nuclear weapon on a hilltop”. MASSIVE bursts of radiation. We hid in control room bunker under a hill, 1/2 mile away, 2-foot thick Boronated Concrete shell (neutron moderator), surrounded by 1-foot thick reinforced concrete. Ecologists were always combing area for mutants. Nothing, even after EONS of equivalent radiation. So much for theory of “Beneficial Mutation” the Darwinists are always waving. -Allen Young, Registered Professional Engineer, Texas (BS Physics, BSEE, MSEE)
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:26 pm
This is the first movie I have looked forward to viewing in many years. “It is about America, and the unseen silent hand of repression that is taking hold of science, in our public universities and government laboratories.”
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Darwinists have struggled with explaining the “self-organization of life” amidst the increasing entropy (disorder) of the universe at-large. Some have explained this as a “runaway ramp”, a simple pause toward disorder. If only the Thermodynamic element is considered, this might be so. But, they can never explain the equation imbalance left by the huge, negative “Information Entropy” represented within life, itself. The term “Information Entropy” was coined during a conversation between Shannon (information theory and communications) and von Neumann. Thermodynamically, the bond energy in your DNA may be identical for many different arrangements. However, the specific Information Entropy therein is quite important to ensure that your nose is not located on your posterior. Darwinesque views of life do not account for this.
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:47 pm
… or so they say. But God works in mysterious ways as well. It’s amazing how something like this suddenly has those Darwinians dredging up from the bottom of that ‘ol oozepool, to come out and downplay any kind of Intelligent Design/Creator.
But God gave people a sense of curiosity (meow), so I think this documentary may raise a few brows.
In 150 yrs, Darwinism evolution hasn’t proved anything, and of course, there’s that any day now we can still find that proof and evidence that Darwinism evo is true. But, in the mean time, let them have their fit, and that makes many peeps question, why are those Darwinians getting so mad if they have all the facts? They have to wonder if Darwinians aren’t confident, why?
Ah, yes, bad to the bone … and those atheists think they can take over the world? Push God right out of the picture, forever? Under who’s authority? God’s? LOL, you Darwinians slay me.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:36 am
Wow, you guys are stupifying. If you get it your way, we wont only have to teach one version of ID. We will have to teach every single retardo religious creation story as if it was true. Equal time! I want to see the hindu creation story as fact as well as the native american one. Howcome no one is giving these theories equal time dammit. Or better yet, I just came up with my theory, its called Intelligent Designation - there was this guy, I call him the creator, and he came to earth and little seeds came out of his fingers and turned into simple cells, from there he used a piano and every note he played created a new species. There, that is what we should teach in school, i mean come on, there are so many gaps in evolution that this has to be true. lol
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Evolutionists have only themselves to blame for the general population finally reacting against them. We must ask ourselves, “Why was the objective of the educational system, EVER to prove or disprove the existence of a CREATOR?” The purpose of an educational system is to EDUCATE people regarding WHAT WE KNOW! If Evolutionists INSIST on proving there is not a Creator, people like me will INSIST upon challenging them. My message to educators is, “Teach what you can PROVE, extrapolate to what is PROBABLE, and STOP THERE! You can never prove that my Creator is not real, so quit trying and educate like we’re paying you to do!” -Allen Young, Registered Professional Engineer, Texas, BS Physics, BSEE, MSEE
P.S. The answer to the initial question I posed is that Secular Progressives hope to eventually replace our concept of “Inalienable Rights from a Creator” with “Conditional Rights from Their Concept of Government”
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
I am a Christian.
I’m excitied about the release of this movie because it will open alot of oppurtunities to discuss God and His Creation.
Let me just give you a small overview of what I believe.
-God is real. He is eternal. He created the Universe and everything in it according to Genisis 1:1,
“God created the heavens and the earth.”
-Everything is held together by God, as it says in Colossians 1:16-17,
“For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him: and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.”
-Despite what evolutionists say, there is evidence for a Creator. Just take a look at the world around you! The ever consistent and changing seasons, the mystery and beauty in the transformation from caterpillar to butterfly or the wonder and complexity of conception and birth. It screams of a Creator! Perform as many experiments, write as many books and engage in as many debates as you like, when it all comes down to it, deep in the soul of every man and woman is the knowledge of their Creator.
Consider, for a moment, if it is even logical to believe in Evolution. This philosophy claims that life came from a series of chemical reactions in a little sludge pool. From that, life somehow evolved into the incredible complexity and order it is today.
With that in mind, imagine you’re walking through the woods. You’re just strolling along, getting a little afternoon excercise before dinner. You look down at the ground to find a watch lying at your feet. You pick it up. “Where could it have come from?”, you wonder. Well, at one point it must have been made by a Watchmaker.Then at some point it’s owner lost it.
It wouldn’t be logical to say “well, over time and through a series of chemical reactions, this watch must have evolved from the dirt.” No! And yet, as far more complex the human body is as compared to a watch, that is what evolution claims happened.
Hopefully, this film will be able to give those believing in Intelligent Design the freedom that they deserve. Also, I don’t mean to hurt anyones feelings or make anyone mad. My only intent is to give the world what they so desperately need, the Truth.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Darwinism is a pseudoscience that demands blind faith and adherence to the latest paleobabble talking points. You’ll notice that whenever evolution is attacked, the evolutionists will resort to attacking religion as if that bolsters the defense of evolution.
There is nothing measurable, testable or repeatable about evolution and in the 148 years since The Origin of Species came out, none of the countless transitional forms that Darwin predicted have been found.
Keep up the good work! I cannot wait to see the film.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Charles Darwin was, undeniably, a man with a keen eye for detail. He was by no means, however, a true scientist of great stature like Sir Isaac Newton. While Newton, a Physical Scientist and Mathematician, refined and applied Calculus to the building of modern technology and real knowledge, Darwin was merely an astute librarian. And, while he and his colleagues corresponded in semi-quantitative, Victorian silliloque that begged for reduction to but a few words, its content was AND IS STILL lacking. So, while mindless people proudly display the “footed Ichthus” on their cars, Darwin’s modern-day warriors blink in stunned silence at the results of the Human Genome Project. Their simplistic one-gene-for-one-trait model failed, leaving them to wonder how a Human can be defined with a fraction of those expected. In their conceit, they never expected the beautiful, multiple-order interactions among genes that causes them to subtly modulate the effects of each other. Yes, most Christians have heard about enough of the wonders of Mr. Darwin, a man who had serious doubts about the viability of his own theory. Look at this following, direct quote from Darwin, and ask yourself if your boss would accept such an argument as a substitute for credible performance.
–The Origins of Species - Ch 10 - by Charles Darwin–
… Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. For my part, following out Lyell’s metaphor, I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept and written in a changing dialect. Of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved, and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, more or less different in the successive chapters, may represent the forms of life, which are entombed in our consecutive formations, and which falsely appear to have been abruptly introduced. On this view the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished or even disappear.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
If Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, what does it predict, and what applications does it have?
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:29 pm
“My 8th Grade Science Teacher was breathless about experiments with Drosophila in Genetics. Just KNEW transitional species would emerge! Four decades of massive irradiation later - still just Fruit Flies, minus a few features, plus a few stripes and polka dots. Whoopie.”
fruit fly URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
“There was no oozepool, no BIG BANG!!!”
There was a big bang.
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/443d6bc0b02dd25e?dmode=source
The Discovery That the Universe Is Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
A primordial soup didn’t exist.
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
some 1915-1999 doses of reality
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33arf3F3vjdggU1%40individual.net
atheism of the gaps
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1163208112.842963.215980%40f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
“Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, was a pioneer in the early field of eugenics which was the study of skills by ethnic groups. While Galton’s work was relatively harmless, Hitler’s work — to synthesize natural selection by exterminating a race of people — was not.”
1884 atheism-adherent Galton: “the jews are specialized for a parasitical existence”
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1176174475.647539.256600%40o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
solidification of Galton’s conversion to atheism
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1152069471.339904.173350%40v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com
Draft 2 of a chronology of Darwinian thought and the march to the Final Solution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1122434358.640904.162640%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Hitler’s actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah’s Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
“….Darwin, Huxley and many of the early advocates of evolution stated publicly that Asians, Africans, Australian Aborigines and other non-white, non-European groups were evolutionary throwbacks.”
Buchner, Ludwig. 1872. _Der Mensch und seine Stellung in der Natur_,
2nd edition (Leipzig), 147. Cited in
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics,
Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_ (USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp.,
191. About Weikart’s book:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
The white or Caucasian human species is ordained
to take dominion of the earth, while the lowest
human races, like Americans, Australians, Alfuren,
Hottentots, and such others, are proceeding toward
their destruction with huge steps.
1871 Darwin: [CD]”the civilised races of man”– e.g. [CD]”the Caucasian”– [CD]”will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races”– e.g. [CD]”the negro or Australian,” as in Australian aborigine– with the end result being [CD]”man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407060404.711490be%40posting.google.com
Darwin to W. Graham
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/letters/letters1_08.html
Down, July 3rd, 1881.
==
Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not
so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the
Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The
more civilised so-called Caucasian races have
beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for
existence. Looking to the world at no very distant
date, what an endless number of the lower races
will have been eliminated by the higher civilized
races throughout the world. But I will write no more,
and not even mention the many points in your work
which have much interested me. I have indeed
cause to apologise for troubling you with my
impressions, and my sole excuse is the excitement
in my mind which your book has aroused.
I beg leave to remain,
Dear Sir,
Yours faithfully and obliged,
CHARLES DARWIN.
Hitler & Darwin URLs
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7bb70dd31802664e?hl=en&
Neo-Nazis, I suggest you study the writings of that scientist, and
prophet of Darwin in England, T.H. Huxley.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1146056580.480126.106210%40e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:42 pm
“6. Evolution is a religion. Yes, evolution is the faith of atheism because it replaces God with man. When you’ve conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science.”
1993 Michael Ruse: “for Julian Huxley evolution was functioning as a kind of secular religion”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1164729280.977099.300830%40h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
1980 John Durant: the secular myths of evolution have had “a damaging effect on scientific research”, leading to “distortion, to needless controversy, and to the gross misuse of science”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406081707.2b79a9e0%40posting.google.com
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Someone linked to “Albert Einstein Quotes on a Personal God: Einstein Denied Personal Gods, Prayer”
Einstein: physics was designed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f67dF59po8jU1%40individual.net
Newton was a creationist regarding biology.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3877igF5kk9siU2%40individual.net
October 24th, 2007 at 4:37 am
Ah, David Ford is in the house. David, nice to see you are alive… and, um, haven’t changed.
Well, “EXPELLED” folks, any credibility you were hoping for has effectively been completely and utterly lost w/ the arrival of Mr. Ford.
BTW, please — PLEASE — tell me that David Ford is in your movie (or involved in any possible manor) and that he is someone who has been “silenced” or “repressed” by the scientific powers that be.
October 24th, 2007 at 4:53 am
In answer to an earlier question, Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory. What most call Intelligent Design is a COLLECTIVE ATTEMPT to highlight a decades-long misuse of educational and governmental resources by Secular Pro(Re)gressives. NEITHER GOVERNMENT NOR PUBLICLY-FUNDED INSTITUTIONS OF LEARNING should allow scientific learning to be extrapolated into concluding that there is NO GOD. I says again, (1) TEACH WHAT YOU CAN PROVE, (2)EXTRAPOLATE to what is reasonable, based upon your proofs, (3) BUT, DO NOT THEN USE JUNK SCIENCE TO ATTEMPT PROOF THAT THERE IS NO GOD. Evolutionists have only themselves to blame for the emergence of “Intelligent Design”. If Evolutionists and their Secular Pro(Re)gressive partners persist in teaching and governing beyond their bounds, so will WE push back to prevent them from doing so.
October 24th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Darwin is the Father of Evolution - Dawkins is the chosen prophet and the Galapagos Islands are Mecca.
October 24th, 2007 at 7:43 am
[Eightbitmage on October 22, 2007]”There is no evidence for intelligent design.”
Do you think biology has the appearance of having been designed by intelligence?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135748125.229401.252690%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
2006 Dawkins: life has “an overwhelming illusion of ‘design.’”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1172243872.240034.24900%408g2000cwh.googlegroups.com
2005 Dawkins: “the illusion of design”; “things that look designed (like birds”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1172240834.278579.111180%40q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
October 24th, 2007 at 7:49 am
[magilum on October 23rd, 2007]”If Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, what does it predict, and what applications does it have?”
I wouldn’t say “Intelligent Design is a scientific theory.”
I would say that ID can provide for a metaphysical research program.
ID as a metaphysical research program
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Do you think the T0E “is a scientific theory”? If so, what does the T0E predict?
///////////////////////////////////
ReMine, and Birch & Ehrlich on the unfalsifiability of the ToE
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990620062330.18490880A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
T0E good for study of morphogenesis?: Goodwin
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402230503.56fa7a7%40posting.google.com
T0E good for taxonomy?: 1973 Fairbairn (a creationist); 1982 Colin Patterson; 5 November 1981 Patterson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402161147.29fee40e%40posting.google.com
October 24th, 2007 at 8:47 am
“For them…the ’silent hand’ of academic suppression is all too _real_. Sadly, this movie _doesn’t end well_, for them. They go home to families that need to be fed, and live in houses that are mortgaged and children who hope someday to attend college themselves.”
Fire the IDiots
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403121312.35d2e0c%40posting.google.com
“the ‘thought crime’ of believing that life is purposeful”
1949 Simpson: “man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process that did not have him in mind”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407211226.2988d48b%40posting.google.com
1982 Stebbins: “evolution [i.e. blindwatchmaking] was opportunistic and devoid of purpose”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407220448.59612c65%40posting.google.com
a t.o. philosopher on ‘function’ and ‘purpose’ in biology
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37c9m5F59n45nU1%40individual.net
1962 Oparin: “the universal ‘purposiveness’ of the organisation of living beings is an objective and self-evident fact”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407240715.2b0e119a%40posting.google.com
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
October 24th, 2007 at 9:06 am
[Marilyn]”The atheist becomes selfish”
selfish, devout atheist makes a discovery
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1189710468.679694.94610%4022g2000hsm.googlegroups.com
Motivations for Continuing to Cling to Philosophy of Materialism, 1999 Paul Vitz on personal convenience; 2002 Benjamin Wiker
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35qe6lF4orjsoU1%40individual.net
October 24th, 2007 at 9:08 am
“pseudoscience and fraud”
the fraud known as the fossil horse series
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980816003836.28616B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
godlessness in trouble: science, ‘frauds’ trigger decline in atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-38r8v3F5qkkv1U1%40individual.net
1983 Bruce Alberts; Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo depictions; 1956 Goldschmidt
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-38m3vrF5o7bk2U1%40individual.net
Anthropologist Loren Eiseley concerning Piltdown. Cited in
http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-8-what-creation-book-says-about.html#t224
I’m looking at this Eiseley in Fix (1984), 13, which is where the
author of that website article apparently got the Eiseley. In looking
at the Fix bibliography, the Eiseley is highly-probably originally in
McKern, Thomas, ed. 1966. _Readings in Physical Anthropology_ (NJ:
Prentice-Hall).
The amount of subjective speculation indulged in for
years over the Piltdown “fossil,” and to which many
leading authorities contributed, can now be viewed
historically as a remarkable case history in self-
deception. It should serve as an everlasting warning
to science that it is not the theologian alone who
may exhibit irrational bias or give allegiance to
theories with only the most tenuous basis in fact.
That scientists in the early years of a new discipline
should have been easily deceived is not nearly so
embarrassing as the rapidity with which they
embraced the specimen solely because it fell in with
preconceived wishes and could be used to support
all manner of convenient hypotheses. The
enormous bibliography in several languages which
grew up around the skull is an ample indication,
also, of how much breath can be expended
fruitlessly upon ambiguous or dubious materials.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:12 am
“finally revealing a tested scientific ID hypothesis that explains the accumulated data better than established theories”
2006 _Creation As Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the
Creation/evolution Wars_
by Hugh Ross
http://www.amazon.com/Creation-As-Science-Approach-evolution/dp/1576835782/sr=8-1/qid=1159838370
October 24th, 2007 at 9:16 am
[Wiggy on October 21st, 2007]”Scientists don’t hold on to evolution because they want to be atheists. That’s obviously absurd. They accept evolution because of overwhelming evidence everywhere they look.”
Meaning of “evolution”?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
For what reason(s) do some believe in spontaneous generation?
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
October 24th, 2007 at 9:19 am
[Wedge Document]”To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies”
Edward Simon, probably originally in his Another Side to the Evolution
Problem, Jewish Press, Jan. 7, 1983, 248,
cited in
http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number12/Darwinpapers12HTML.htm#N_1_
I don’t claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution
brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the
theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to
the moral climate that made a holocaust possible….
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian, atheistic a-moral climate
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118315214.069039.280490%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah’s Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&
Hitler’s actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Draft 2 of a chronology of Darwinian thought and the march to the Final Solution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1122434358.640904.162640%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
1868 Haeckel, 2003 Dawkins, 1997 George Williams, 1995 Dennett: Darwinist atheists/ materialists downgrading the value of human life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-399aluF5uql89U1%40individual.net
Haeckel on killing the disabled
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a8etdF65smnrU4%40individual.net
Gould: “Haeckel…. contributed to the rise of Nazism”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1158864074.051352.81770%40h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
October 24th, 2007 at 9:22 am
“in the 148 years since The Origin of Species came out, none of the countless transitional forms that Darwin predicted have been found”
_Paleobiology_ 3: 134 (1977), Gould & Eldredge:
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence
a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing (’all
these years of work and I haven’t found any evolution’).
Essay on Problems with Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
October 24th, 2007 at 9:24 am
“let them have their fit….
why are those Darwinians getting so mad if they have all the facts? They have to wonder if Darwinians aren’t confident, why?”
Simpson on rapidity/ “quantum evolution”; P. Johnson (a creationist) on Dawkins’s bluster
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10001152331430.1317621-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Feynman, R. Reid, and Berlinski on _ad hominems_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990102235105.11328B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
October 24th, 2007 at 9:54 am
“the known productive biological information source of duplication-plus-variation (be it mutation or crossovers in egg and sperm DNA)”
What are 3 observed instances of the production of “biological information” of which you’re aware?
What are 3 beneficial cancer-inducing mutations in humans of which you’re aware?
///////////////////////////////////////////////
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith; How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information originate?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-32gv43F3jsrelU1%40individual.net
How does a seeingwatchmakingist account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human? a bacterium? the first biological lifeform?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348nj6F47evohU1%40individual.net
can atheism account for origination of 382 essential genes?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1164396926.582303.88630%40j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
One literature search for “mutation”; mutation URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37elv4F5260vbU1%40individual.net
October 24th, 2007 at 11:05 am
I’d like to give my support for a movie of this nature. After studying micro and cell biology I’ve become convinced that random chance is an inadequate mechanism for the development of the incredibly complicated biochemical pathways that exist. I would compare life coming about randomly to the likelihood of aiming a receiver at a star and getting the first season of Alf beamed back by chance. I would personally lend more credence to the idea that aliens tarraformed this planet and set life on it then life came from some kind of ooze. Unfortunately, the alien theory leaves the question, where did the aliens come from? Thus the whole question of origins begins again. It all boils down to either there is a God, or there’s not and both possibilities are truly horrific. If there is no God, then the earth is flying around a self sustaining nucler explosion at an incredible velocity and there is no one in charge. Furthermore, if there is no God, life ultimately has no meaning because on a long enough time scale the universe will be drawn back into itself by gravitational forces and everything will end. No monument to humanity, not a single peace of evidence will remain to prove that humanity even existed. To me, this is a terrible prospect. On the other hand, if there is a God, we better figure out who he is and what he wants. There seems to be no room for certainty in either direction above the faith a person puts into one of the two ideas(creation, chance). This is why I’m so against either idea being completely snuffed out by intellectual elitism. We don’t live in Iran or communist Russia, even though I believe my convictions to be placed in what is absolutely true, everyone should have the right to choose for themselves from ALL of the evidence. A concerted effort to snuff out either idea cannot be permitted in a truly free society. I would personally have everyone come to know what I have found to be absolutely true and edifying but I have no right to withhold information which contradicts what I have found. It is reasonable to point out errors in this evidence but not to conceal it completely. So if a professor wishes to degrade an idea, that is his prerogative, but to conceal an idea because it contradicts his faith in evolution is most unacceptable. It was unacceptable when the church and religious community tried to do it with the birth of the evolutionary faith and it’s unacceptable now. An Ideas truth is self evident, that is how truthful and edifying an idea is does not depend on the people who hold and support it, but rather the idea itself is either truthful and edifying or it’s not, and in America that is for everyone to decide.
October 24th, 2007 at 11:33 am
It is obvious these anti-religious freaks would expel you too Ben!! Thanks for the movie! Can’t wait to see all the push back on this one.
October 24th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
As long as you continue the falsehood that Einstein was a theist, as well as the idea that theists are somehow persecuted for their beliefs, your film will never be more than a polemical rant and a frenzy of quote-mining. In short, a dishonest hack-job.
The problem is, creationists have come to believe that just because they believe in something, that it should be taught in science classes. There is not only no evidence for their claims, but also plenty of evidence against them. Arguing that they should have their views presented as valid science, or that they should get a *pass* on basic competence just because they believe it to be true against all evidence, is absurd.
A persecution complex is what we have here.
October 24th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
-Did you ever ask yourself how one, lone, beneficially-altered Mutant managed to spawn an entirely new species?
-Did you ever wonder if, just perhaps, in the self-assemblage of subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, fats, proteins, cellular structures and finally, organisms, WHETHER THEY REALLY HAD ANY CHOICE BUT TO ASSEMBLE AS THEY DID?
-If we started over at t=0+ (just after Big Bang), would the same laws of Physics not produce the same end result?
-If you say “not”, then why? The Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces, Coulombic Forces, Electronegativities, Valences are NOT A MATTER OF RANDOMNESS OR CHOICE! They simple WORK, and given the chance, WILL PRODUCE IDENTICAL RESULTS
-Just what if, what if Universal, Galactic, Solar System and Planetary conditions simply choose organisms from an index whose inevitability existed, even at t=0+?
-And, given precisely the same initial conditions at t=0+, with the same laws of Physics, what choice did even the planets have in arriving at precisely the conditions we have NOW, that have finally produced YOU, NOW?
-I’ve had (and passed) Quantum Mechanics - I know about Wave Functions - I know about Selection Rules - I also know that far greater intellects than my own are hopelessly mired, daily, in subjective theories, supported by newly-manufactured mathematics and Algebras - BUT NONE OF THIS - NONE OF THIS - PROVES ANYTHING! Even THESE, are based on FAITH.
-So, to the elite Evolutionists, Darwinists and Secular Pro(Re)gressives: LEAVE MY FAITH ALONE!
October 24th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Allen Young wrote: “In answer to an earlier question, Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory.”
Thank you for admitting the obvious. Now the important question: if it’s “not a scientific theory,” why on earth should we teach it in science classes?
In response to your claim that “scientific learning” is being “extrapolated into concluding that there is NO GOD” in public education, I can only ask where you’ve ever seen such a thing. I’ve never had a science class in which a teacher or a textbook even hinted at such a conclusion. It’s not a scientific topic.
October 24th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I just wanted to throw this out there.
To me there is a difference between Intelligent Design and Biblical Creation. I am one to believe in Biblical Creation because that is God’s word, where Intelligent Design could mean aliens or anything. Am I confused? maybe but lets get real clear on what our beliefs are.
October 24th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I teach Bioinformatics at a major US research-oriented university and happen to be an atheist. However, I do not expel alternative viewpoints from the classroom. Evolutionary theory has led to statistical models for the analysis of genomes and I teach these models. If intelligent design proponents want to develop statistical testable models for genome analysis and annotation based upon their theory, then I would be very happy both to incorporate such models into lectures and test these models against null models (assuming neither evolution nor intelligent design) and evolutionary models using established statistical methods for goodness of fit of models to data given the number of parameters in the model. My problem with the intelligent design movement is that there seem to be no testable falsifiable hypotheses being generated that are the hallmarks of scientific theory. So, please bring on the statistical models based upon ID.
October 24th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
I used to have a great deal of respect for Ben Stein. He struck me as educated and well informed. Sadly, I must now consider him a deluded fool.
Interestingly enough, if there was evidence for a deity to be involved in anything, scientists would be the first to try to quantify and understand the deity.
How terrible it is that I must keep quiet of my atheism so that I may continue to have a roof over my head, a job, or even hold a conversation with someone simply because of the allowances judeao-christian dogma has placed on destroying those such as myself.
Ben Stein is just another hate mongering terrorist and should be treated as such. Unfortunately, if I recall correctly, he has served as an advisor to at least one president.
October 24th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Creationism and ID PWNED!
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1777,Eugenie-Scott-on-Intelligent-Design-and-Young-Earth-Creationism,Eugenie-Scott-AAI-07
October 24th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Opsin duplication and variation to give us tricolor vision, Hox gene duplication and variation in vertebrates to let the segments of our bodies vary more than that of insects, and in more recent times, the evolution of AIDS Vpu to create a viroporin, forming pores in the host cells.
I don’t know current cancer research well enough to answer that, and that may be the wrong question to ask. For example, cancer going malignant is often related to managing to turn on telomerase, which is a complex that adds length onto the “shoelace ends” of the chromosome. Otherwise, individual cancer cells grow to form about a four-gram benign mass (depending on where it’s located). Telomerase is necessary in the chromosome for sperm production in particular, or else children would be born with a lot less cell divisions left to them.
October 24th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
LOWELL WROTE: Thank you for admitting the obvious. Now the important question: if it’s “not a scientific theory,” why on earth should we teach it in science classes?
ALLEN REPLIES:
Yes, I stated that the term “Intelligent Design” does NOT represent a single, cohesive, scientific theory. What the term DOES represent, is a shout of defiance against an almost Stalinist educational establishment that refuses to openly acknowledge the shortcomings of its own Evolution theories, then severely chastises its members who question their viability. Finally, to ensure that unbelievers are further threatened, a Federal Judge is prompted to write a dissertation-length decision regarding “Why Intelligent Design Shall Not Be Taught!” It’s not hard for an objective person to see why Christians in our classrooms feel increasingly like a Border-Control-Advocate at a Columbia University forum.
—————————————————-
LOWELL WROTE:
In response to your claim that “scientific learning” is being “extrapolated into concluding that there is NO GOD” in public education, I can only ask where you’ve ever seen such a thing. I’ve never had a science class in which a teacher or a textbook even hinted at such a conclusion. It’s not a scientific topic
ALLEN REPLIES:
To deny that Darwinism has been used for decades to bludgeon Christianity and a general belief in God is to be either naive or disingenuous. As noted on this website, Richard Dawkins of Oxford clearly states that he regards believers in a God as not having even the right to speak about it. Sure, Oxford is not exactly “public education”, but it is the template to which most public education aspires. This bias, overt or not, permeates the halls of nearly ALL institutions of “higher learning”, especially in the Natural Sciences.
———————————————————
DAVID WROTE:
My problem with the intelligent design movement is that there seem to be no testable falsifiable hypotheses being generated that are the hallmarks of scientific theory. So, please bring on the statistical models based upon ID.
ALLEN REPLIES:
I use statistics daily on many things I do not understand. I do not understand WHY radioactive decay that I observe with scintillation detectors is Normally Distributed at higher count rates, but statistics simply provide a good MODEL. Statistics will NEVER be a substitute for Mechanistic Understanding, and in Genetics, the latter is in VERY SHORT SUPPLY! Einstein was NEVER IMPRESSED with statistics, and always believed even the statistical Wave Functions of Quantum Mechanics to be simply a behavioral model that explained nothing. Statistics will never (1) Prove anything, (2) Explain HOW anything works, or (3) Explain WHY anything works. Statistics simply make us feel better about not understanding the unexplainable.
October 24th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Allen Young regarding your post #31: seems to me that the topic “purpose of an educational system” is perfectly on point for this blog. I do not disagree with your comments, but wish to add the following:
I hope that the movie shores up what I believe to be the primary goal of education, i.e., to teach the student to think! and to think for himself . . . (to subsequently be able to articulate his thoughts, views, etc. in a rational, thoughtful and logical manner would, of course, be a close second and/or a nice bonus — lol)
I also hope that the movie, at least, exposes the current system for what it is — they want our children to be “memorizers”, to toe the “party” line, and to have them score high on their tests so that their livelihoods are not threatened. (At worst, and I speak from personal experience, many of them prefer that many of our children would be prescribed unneeded drugs — therefore, in my opinion, rendering the children more susceptible to, er, “direction,” etc.)
I’ve raised several children, both in and out of the system; most recently a 6 year stint of home schooling. Three of these children are currently “back in the system.” They know how to “think” (for themselves) and they’re all fairly skilled debaters. That being said, these children are young (beginning high school) I’m not really fearful, but more curious, to see how they will deal with the dogma that I know will be shoveled their way on a daily basis.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
About proving God. Let’s put this myth to rest.
Kurt Gödel was a twentieth century mathematician listed by Time Magazine as one of the top people of the century.
http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/godel.html
He has an ontological proof that God exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del’s_ontological_proof
Before making a fool of yourself, please review his proof and tell us what you find wrong. Until then, please don’t say there is no God.
Tommy A.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:27 am
Oh-oh…looks like the Random Mutants are in a tizzy over at Panda’s Thumb.It seems that the zacks are in a frenzy over Ben Stein’s appearance on the O’Reilly Factor. The Undead are moaning, because Ben apparently said something that contradicts the Discovery Institue. Oh, My! Freedom of speech rearing it’s ugly head everywhere! “EXPELL HIM,” demand The Stiffs!
October 25th, 2007 at 5:03 am
For the love of God (pun intended) Evolution isn’t about the how life originated.
Evolution is how one form of life into another.
October 25th, 2007 at 6:29 am
Theists will always curl up in there little ball and say “oh look at him hes criticizing our religion” yet there more then welcome to criticize same sex marriage, stem cell research, and all those godless heathens that should burn in hell. See a fallacy in there? well do you? So quick to play the “Christ said they will persecute us” card.
If anyone thinks that ID is a science need to know the facts.
http://tinyurl.com/2jruz9
Its just a rehash of creationism, of course there discriminated against they want to teach the world is 6000 years old. That a talking snake told a person to eat an apple, that I need to ask a dead guy on stick to forgive my the sin I was born into that I had no part in deciding. That I should eat of his flesh and drink of his blood… Looking at it outside of the 19 years of Christianity I was raised in. The whole thing looked at without bias all it is, is the Christian equivalent of older religions full of Human Sacrifice and Cannibalism (among stoning your children to death and burning witches :D) HELLO~!? did everyones brains drop completely out of there skulls?
And to those that say “OH its not Christianity its just *intelligent design*” We wanna promote the idea of a designer because we have a agend… I mean we wanna promote alternative view points to Evolution. Well then… Can I say that Jar Jar Binks with his infinite wisdom made the universe. Or is that stretching it? Oh whats that? you say you want me to believe in Yahweh oh-oh really now.
Ok I already stated the talking snake theory.
We’ll go into the we are made of turned butter or something along those lines.(Hinduism)
How about that were all descendants of a ancient race that fled from a distant galaxy and some galactic warlord threw some people into volcanoes and were all have there dead alien ghosts in us… I cant even begin to explain there nonsense, its something along those lines. (Scientology)
That western goods (”cargo”) have been created by divine spirits and are intended for the local indigenous people of southern Pacific islands.(Pacific Cargo Cult)
Ect ect… Insert whatever other variant of your religious belief you want to package in a nice organization or multiple organizations (Intelligent Design) Get some people together that wanna push there religious agenda on people, add in some.
Straw man Arguments
Ad homonym Attacks
Quote Mining
Foundational Biases
Ad Hoc Reasoning
Non Sequiturs
Equivocation
Tautology
False Dichotomy
Arguments from Authority
Argument from Personal Incredulity
Appeals to the Majority
Violation of the Philosophy of Science(Saying you can prove the supernatural with science. Thats like someone with phantom limb syndrome saying they can prove that there limb actually exists…)
Toss them around in a nice big salad bowl and what do you come out with? A organization that sounds like it could be reasonable. They sound intelligent they speak with confidence, they must be right…? Y.E.AH.. Hitler also sounded intelligent and spoke with confidence.
Anything can be argued, ANYTHING with those concepts I listed. So I leave you with these words of wisdom.
“By all means let’s be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.”
~Richard Dawkins
October 25th, 2007 at 7:15 am
Theists will always curl up in there little ball and say “oh look at him hes criticizing our religion” yet there more then welcome to criticize same sex marriage, stem cell research, and all those godless heathens that should burn in hell. See a fallacy in there? well do you? So quick to play the “Christ said they will persecute us” card.
If anyone thinks that ID is a science need to know the facts.
http://tinyurl.com/2jruz9
Its just a rehash of creationism, of course there discriminated against they want to teach the world is 6000 years old. That a talking snake told a person to eat an apple, that I need to ask a dead guy on stick to forgive my the sin I was born into that I had no part in deciding. That I should eat of his flesh and drink of his blood… Looking at it outside of the 19 years of Christianity I was raised in. The whole thing looked at without bias all it is, is the Christian equivalent of older religions full of Human Sacrifice and Cannibalism (among stoning your children to death and burning witches :D) HELLO~!? did everyones brains drop completely out of there skulls?
And to those that say “OH its not Christianity its just *intelligent design*” We wanna promote the idea of a designer because we have a agend… I mean we wanna promote alternative view points to Evolution. Well then… Can I say that Jar Jar Binks with his infinite wisdom made the universe. Or is that stretching it? Oh whats that? you say you want me to believe in Yahweh oh-oh really now.
Ok I already stated the talking snake theory.
We’ll go into the we are made of turned butter or something along those lines.(Hinduism)
How about that were all descendants of a ancient race that fled from a distant galaxy and some galactic warlord threw some people into volcanoes and were all have there dead alien ghosts in us… I cant even begin to explain there nonsense, its something along those lines. (Scientology)
That western goods (”cargo”) have been created by divine spirits and are intended for the local indigenous people of southern Pacific islands.(Pacific Cargo Cult)
Ect ect… Insert whatever other variant of your religious belief you want to package in a nice organization or multiple organizations (Intelligent Design) Get some people together that wanna push there religious agenda on people, add in some. Straw man Arguments,
Ad homonym Attacks, Quote Mining, Foundational Biases, Ad Hoc Reasoning, Non Sequiturs, Equivocation, Tautology, False Dichotomy, Arguments from Authority, Argument from Personal Incredulity, Appeals to the Majority, Violation of the Philosophy of Science(Saying you can prove the supernatural with science. Thats like someone with phantom limb syndrome saying they can prove that there limb actually exists…)
Toss them around in a nice big salad bowl and what do you come out with? A organization that sounds like it could be reasonable. They sound intelligent they speak with confidence, they must be right…? Y.E.AH.. Hitler also sounded intelligent and spoke with confidence.
Anything can be argued, ANYTHING with those concepts I listed. So I leave you with these words of wisdom.
“By all means let’s be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.”
~Richard Dawkins
October 25th, 2007 at 9:02 am
I find it interesting that some of the posts in defense of evolution call it science. In truth it’s more of a faith then Christianity. I would love for nothing more then MACROevolution to be entirely removed from science class and only what is testable and provable to be thought. Sense no scientist can go back and actually test and observe how things came about calling it science is ignorant. If your going to have a class that deals with origins, don’t call it science call it philosophy. The idea that all life came from one ancestor is simply not supported by the data, think cambrian explosion. Before this only truly basic life forms existed, then, in a relatively small period of time a massive amount of diversity and complexity. This is not slow single change adaptation. Evolutionists are blinded by their desire to make themselves gods by removing the possibility of a creator. There is daily being discovered evidence, which supports micro evolutionary process that is evidence for adaptive abilities within the bounds of a genetic program. The sad truth for evolutionists is that the DNA of almost every known organism has checks and balances to prevent random mutation. If anything these checks have a tendency to insure the integrity of the program. This is not random, this is good programming. If a person looks only at the evidence for and against evolution no conclusion can be reached other then it is insufficient to explain the data and needs to be thrown out from science. That’s how science works. It is repugnant how evolutionary fanatics are forcing the data to fit their theory and omitting anything they can’t squeeze into their faith. And evolution is a faith. When a person believes in something that can’t be proven, observed or tested, that’s faith.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:24 am
So according to Allen Young, ID is not a cohesive scientific theory and doesn’t make predictions but rather a shout of defiance that evolutionary models are not perfect. Similarly, the evaluation of statistical models with mechanistic parameters is questioned as an appropriate scientific tool (ignoring that this is common across all of science in evaluating competing models to explain data). So, how is this supposed to go for us professors? Models for molecular evolution are not perfect and therefore evolution never happened and the bible is literally true. So, we teach genesis in bioinformatics class. Now, we have this genome to annotate. We better not use the evolutionary models to describe gene functions from sequences because evolution never happened. But there are no ID models to annotate genomes, so we better not annotate the genome. Oops, we actually wanted to know something about the bacteria whose genome we just sequenced because it causes disease. Well, let’ws just pray instead and shout our defiance at evolution. Sounds like a great plan for both education and medicine. Don’t claim that ID is being expelled from the classroom. As a professor, I would be happy to teach ID-based approaches to sequence and genome analysis in addition to evolution-based approaches. So, stop shouting about being discriminated against and get to work on doing id science that is worthy of inclusion in the classroom, the laboratory, and the clinic. Lots of hype, no substance….
October 25th, 2007 at 10:43 am
About models in genetics not explaining anything, just making us feel good about not understanding. It seems to me as if population genetic models are very good at differentiating selection from neutrality, for examining population dynamics (changes in population size), for detecting recombination, …. Increasingly, the population genetic models for protein-coding genes in populations are being coupled to physical chemical models for protein folding and binding (with additional parameters) to explain gene evolution. These models can also be turned on their head and used for protein design, to design proteins that fold into a given structure and that bind other molecules. That puts the models to the test. It’d be great to see an ID-based model for protein design. Then, let’s see how well it works.
Some description of the genetic models that are claimed provide little mechanistic understanding:
Nature Reviews Genetics 6:678
Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 12:688
BMC Bioinformatics 7:326
Genetics 170:1411
Annual Reviews of Genetics 39:197
…
From reading these papers, you will see that that claim is nonsense and that there is a direct push for more mechanistic models and the evaluation of competing models (nested or non-nested) within a maximum likelihood statistical framework using likelihood ratio tests or AIC. To claim that this gets us nowhere, but shouting defiantly with no models and no tests will actually get us somewhere is nonsense.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Ben,
After scrolling quickly through this blog, I see mostly disagreement with you.
I think you have attached your horse to the wrong cart. You need to realize that God is not allowed in science because the idea is not empirical in nature. You clearly miss an important distinction between science and religion. As far as researchers loosing funding for trying to include god in their research, that is a good thing. Goc is the gaps has done nothing to progress science, it only impeeds it. God is welcome in the philosophy, religion, history, ethics classes, but not in science classes. I am very dissapointed.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:32 am
We are told by John Mundy that evolutionary models do not explain comparative genomic data and should be thrown out. It seems to me that evolutionary models explain the data much better than models that assume that evolution never happened. There are no explicit ID models, as iterated several times already. In the scientific literature, the claims of John Mundy are unfounded and the onus is on ID to create models consistent with ID that explain comparative genomic data better than evolutionary models. So far, evolutionary models explain the data MUCH better than any other model and have predictive value for biotechnology and medicine. If ID is right and models based upon ID fit the data better than evolutionary models, then they will not only be embraced by the scientific community, but by the medical community as well. So, stop claiming discrimination and that evolution is faith and start doing science. If you succeed, you will be taken seriously. If not, you won’t.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Scientific data does not need to be viewed through the bear goggles of evolutionary faith to be useful to mankind.
October 25th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Congratulations At last the biased will be exposed. I love science and always have, but science is not close-ended. Teach Darwinism, but expose its weaknesses as well.
October 25th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
ID is one thing and one thing only Church and organized religion packaged differently. I’m truly disturbed at what these people want to force down peoples throats. Evolution isn’t faith it doesn’t tell people to pray to it. It doesn’t require 10% of your total income. It doesn’t molest quire boys, and it doesn’t profess absolute obedience. ID doesn’t offer ANYTHING to science, evolution might be wrong maybe theres something else I don’t know I’m not a biologist or a scientist. I’m for and scientists are for debating theory’s of all kinds, things are being proven and disprove and new ideas are being come up with all the time in science. But I am not listening to people that I know have a vested interest in bringing god back in the classroom amoung other things. Science does not have time to debate god in science, ID is exactly that G.O.D. They already argued teaching god in schools in the highest courts, and creationists lost. Bruised and beaten they repackaged the deal ie. Intelligent Design
I’m just completely stunned in peoples willingness to take back education 200 years. God and State, god and school do not mix and if you think they can I think you should look at nations that do mix them together, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Iran.
Now take a look at the most secular country’s South Korea, Japan, Finland, Hong Kong there among the most secular nations, and there turning out the best scientists in the world.
If ID has its way with schools, America would drop another few notches in the global science literacy, right below Nigeria, Mexico and Afghanistan.
October 25th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
It’s easy to appreciate and consider opposing views that are vigorously and competently defended. Even God told us, “I would that you were Hot or Cold.”
David’s discussion of marrying Mechanistic or Deterministic Models with Statistics is not an uncommon theme in Sciences and Engineering. The Statistics part of the method gives the Hypothesis Testing and Convergence Criteria to determine if the model is working. Fine and good; everyone’s happy. The disconnect between Athiests and Believers in God is not WHETHER changes are happening; it’s WHY changes are happening. Most believers in God applaud the fine work done by Molecular Biologists and Geneticists to improve health care. We simply don’t believe the studied organisms are randomly evolving. We believe that ALL organisms are changing, AS OBSERVED, by deterministic rules established by the CREATOR. Thus, there is no need for an alternative ID theory of “Biological Evolution”. They are one in the same, and science is slowly progressing toward some day, perhaps without the crutch of statistics, observing the perfection in Design that we believe exists.
October 25th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Thats the problem, people like myself have with Creationist using current scientific knowledge to bolster your own agenda. Because I cant understand it and I’m clouded by this thing called theism I must insert “We believe that ALL organisms are changing, AS OBSERVED, by deterministic rules established by the CREATOR.” So evolution is correct then? You just reword it to include “Creator”
This is the problem where does a 3000 year old book about stoning people to death and conquering a neighboring tribe in gods name. Have any base in Science? I’m sorry point me to the appropriate verse in the bible that had to do with Biological Evolution? Or maybe that verse about how the earth obits the sun. Maybe something simple a verse about the earth being round. A little mention about that “other” continent across the ocean?
I’m sorry but this is exactly why we don’t want ID in public schools. Keep it in your churches and Sunday schools, take it into politics and education I’m sorry thats where I draw the line.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Welcome one and all to the evolutionary faith. We don’t require money, we don’t ask for any kind of active participation or self-improvement; all that we ask for is for you to believe in nothing. To accept that in the grand scheme of things, nothing matters at all. All that “is” happened by chance. When you die, there’s nothing after because this life was just good luck. When you die, that’s it. You’ll never know if the skyscraper you built stood for eons or was destroyed by war or an earthquake. In fact, anything you do in life will probably be forgotten, or at best stored on a database so that some day, some lucky kid can look up your great discoveries and call you an old dead dude. And after that, well, the second law of thermodynamics takes over, stars burn out and collide with other stars, and eventually the universe becomes an endless array of black holes until at long last gravity pulls everything into an infinitesimally small quantum singularity and it all begins again. But you won’t know any of that; no one will ever know that humanity even existed. The whole grand purpose of propagating genetic information to pass it on to offspring will ultimately end in nothingness. All that humanity has sought and fought for has no purpose and neither do you. So eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you die. Rape, kill, steal, as long as you don’t get caught, and as long as you use a strong enough date rape drug so that the girl you violate doesn’t remember, it’s ok… because there’s no morality above what you set for yourself. Come to us - we are the followers of evolution, you don’t have to do anything because nothing you do matters. Yes, it’s true, evolution is not a religion; religions offer way too much hope and purpose. They benefit mankind and gave birth to science. Better men than walk this earth today know that this universe was created, that it had boundaries, laws, and principles. They know of the cause and effect nature of everything around them and they believed in God. The faith of evolution is a new thing in the history of science, and within my lifetime, people will look back and think, how could we have possibly thought that was true. Yes, evolution is no religion, it is an empty, hopeless, death and I pity those who follow that faith… for when they die, if they are right, then there is nothing on the other side to welcome them and everything they’ve fought so hard for has no purpose.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Allen,
A few things that are wrong about your paragraph (that I wish you would never say again).
1.) We simply don’t believe the studied organisms are randomly evolving
- Neither do darwinian evolutionists. Learn what we actually think before telling us. We do not think it is random at all, which is what natural selection is all about. Learn about things like cumulative change, and maybe one day you will see it to. read The blind watchmaker by Dawkins, as that will give you a good idea what Darwinists “really” believe.
2.)They are one in the same, and science is slowly progressing toward some day, perhaps without the crutch of statistics, observing the perfection in Design that we believe exists.
-I find this comment ignorant for the following reasons. science works by looking at data and drawing conclusions. You have already drawn your conclusions, and are awaiting data. This is not scientific in the slightest.
And finally, to everyone else:
If there is evidence of Intelligent Design, then why not show it and win a noble prize? I mean seriously, there are millions of dollars in prizes awaiting you if you have the evidence, so please do tell. Finally, realize this implication if ID were to be taught in schools.
Say we do as Bush wants, and teach the controversy in schools. If this were to happen, then I would say that EVERY church that gets a tax break, has to teach the controversy as well. After all, you guys care about the truth in those churches, so why don’t you teach the “controversy” THERE. This seems a little one sided.
And don’t bother saying “well intelligent design does not declare a specific designer” Because I can not find a single Atheist intelligent design advocate. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
I also do agree that Ben needs to learn what Einstein really thought. It’s sad that so many people have told him the truth on the matter, yet he still spouts off these silly things about him.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:02 am
http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2005/10/only-debate-on-intelligent-design-that.html
The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject
Moderator: We’re here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des—
(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)
Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?
(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate’s kneecap.)
Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!
Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn’t mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the “naturalistic” explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.
Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!
Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible — it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!
Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!
Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can’t rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn’t prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let’s not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.
Intelligent Design advocate: That’s a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we’ll see how that plays in court!
Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it’s so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:06 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
October 26th, 2007 at 1:01 am
I’ve seen some fine tap-dancing regarding my comments. However the truth is that on a philosophical level autism and macroevolution as a solution for life hold absolutely no hope. It’s a faith, a belief held dear by those wishing to think themselves superior, more evolved. There’s a lovely bit of hubris in the idea that sings to the mind. Furthermore, the assertion that macroevolution is actually scientifically proven or even a defendable position is not true. Darwin himself wrote that the existence of a single irreducibly complex system would cause his theory to fall apart in a very fundamental way. I put forth the flagellar motor, a marvel of nano technology. However, if any one part is removed, it no longer functions. The same is true for cloitng factors in your blood, multiple factors all work together so you don’t’ bleed to death, remove one and your on your way to your eternal reward. Finally, I would put forth the bat, supposedly descended from a mouse. The intermediate form between a mouse and a bat would have grotesquely long fingers and no capacity for flight. This would easily be out competed by its ancestor, as it would not be able to run as fast or even grasp nuts with its paws. Now what is science is the ability of an organism to adapt within the bounds of it’s genetic programming. If the program is pushed to far, the offspring become sterol or doesn’t survive at all. On an organism level mutation, the supposed mechanism by which natural selection works, has an extremely negative effect, cancer and tumors.
On another note, I truly consider teaching evolution in high schools, to persons whose understanding and developmental abilities are limited, as a form of child abuse. I say this because all macroevolution points to is an atheistic world view whose ultimate end is set in the second law of thermodynamics. On a long enough time scale, it all ends. So nothing in this universe matters other then hear and now. This is hopeless philosophy. Why anyone would support a faith that embraces this I’ll never know.
A side note, for theistic evolutionists, my comments wholly don’t apply.
1.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Crasch your post gives an excellent example of the mind set which gave rise to the movie being made. I’m pretty sure you’d love to break my kneecaps to prove your point, but thankfully this country has laws against that kind of thing.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:34 am
This “debate”–actually a virulent war of beliefs–would die in an instant if science devoted itself solely to confronting evidence of design, rather than violently suppressing the very thought of it. I am a scientist–one of those Mr. Stein would call “the expelled” because I can’t get my research recognized–and I have found overwhelming evidence of a physical re-design of the Earth, a design which was the objective origin of all the myths, legends, sacred traditions and megalithic monuments–all the “ancient mysteries” that have inspired and haunted mankind throughout history. Go to www.lulu.com/hdhsciences for an introduction to my work, which scientists and science publications have for the last four years refused to acknowledge, much less seriously consider and properly confront. I am being denied any right to recognition or career, by a world of misdirected people who think they already know all they need to know to vilify others who disagree with them. No matter who you are, you don’t know enough to deny the reality of design in the world, or the power of science to uncover and verify it.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:46 am
-First of all, thank you Ben Stein, for providing this forum for free exchange of ideas
-Jon Hall’s ironic comment, “I wish you would never say again”, is exactly what this forum is about, except that government and academia are replacing the words, “I wish you would” with the words, “You shall.”
-Another thing Jon needs to realize is that statistics are a “tool”, no different from a screwdriver
-Statistics can be used to “strongly suggest” that a conclusion is correct, but statistics care nothing about the true origin of the system being studied
-If we were insightful or smart enough as a species, we might not need statistics to “gloss over” the variations in behavior of systems we do not fully understand
-Hey, it’s okay … it’s part of being human, it’s part of NOT BEING GOD, and I can deal with that … if YOU CAN’T, you have my deepest sympathies
October 26th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Anyone on the pro-ID side want to help me here? I fight a lonely battle. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46fd52c7f971d5d2;act=ST;f=14;t=5211;st=0
To the pro evo side. I mentioned to our librarian that you seem to just love to use Wikpedia as a source of info. She just laughed out loud and shook her head. She said that that would not pass the mustard for a high school research paper.
Another issue is that theory tells you how to interpret evidence. Stephen J. Gould said so himself. This means that the issue is NOT about the evidence, but rather the interpretation of the evidence. Ergo we have a conflicting worldviews at work. And don’t bother to tell me Christians accept evo. What they have done is trade the Truth for a lie and found teachers who teach what their itchy ears want to hear.
Finally I have noticed that if you run into foul language or cursing, taking His Name in vain, etc. it is most likely to be the evo crowd. Boy have they evolved competent speech or what!
October 26th, 2007 at 9:33 am
To Navitron :
Boy is this easy! Go to Genesis chapter one and read that living things were created according to their kinds. Hey, you evos have yet to solidify the definition of species so don’t say I need to define kinds. If we get your kind of research funds, and more brains to work on the science of a “kind” we’ll get back to you.
Then God says to be fruitful and fill the earth. Note the seeds of plants are according to kinds again. This means that living things do NOT change kinds! Even Kenneth Miller says this in the Biology book I use to teach. “Flies produce flies. Dogs produce dogs, and seeds from maple trees produce maple trees.” p. 17 Prentise Hall Biology (2002)
Read Job 26 : 7 “He suspends the earth over nothing.” Hmmm…no elephants standing on top of a turtle there.
Read Is. 40 : 22 He is “enthroned above the circle of the earth.” Circles are round in my book.
Hope these help!
October 26th, 2007 at 11:42 am
I found it funny that they would censor my links to the wedge documents.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
This movie is part of their strategy. Just more bandwagon bs.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
While the religious aspects of this argument are the most emotional, there is a VERY pragmatic side to this discussion:
-Secular Pro(Re)gressives have done a great job of selling “The Church” as being opressive
-Hey, why not, when history is full of evil Cardinals, Protestants who burned innocent women at the stake, and yes, even today’s priests who have abused children - yes, many bad things have happened in the name of, and in spite of, Religion
-However, if we fall back to our natural inclination to “keep score”, the magnitude of these travesties pale in comparison to those committed by athiestic regimes in the 20th-21st centuries - Pol Pot (1.5 million deaths), Stalin (50 million), Hitler (21 million), Mao Tse-Tung (3.5 million) and Kim Jong-Il (1-2 million)
-These deaths were and are inflicted by men who essentially proclaim(ed) themselves to be God
-A nation that professes that “We hold these truths to be self-evident … Inalienable rights granted by The Creator … ” is, in a sense, innoculated against a human assuming God-like powers
-Such a national proclaimation protects believers and athiests, alike
-So, while many of us have had bad personal experiences with “religion”, or have read or continue to read of religion-related or -based travesties, we must remember what really matters
-A belief in, or at least a legal and legislative acknowledgement of, God, protects us all - the concept of God is the neutral ground upon which all men can TRULY be equal, with one having NO RIGHT to rule over the other
October 26th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
@John M
“So eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you die. Rape, kill, steal, as long as you don’t get caught, and as long as you use a strong enough date rape drug so that the girl you violate doesn’t remember, it’s ok… because there’s no morality above what you set for yourself. Come to us - we are the followers of evolution, you don’t have to do anything because nothing you do matters.”
You are a prefect example of what ID real intent is to bring the love of god into the classroom. Evolution inst something for your to base for your life after or on. We don’t need to turn science into a discussion about the after life of the meaning of life. Its science its not philosophy, which clearly your trying to make the science classroom into which is Abhorrible. I’m sorry your just making a clear cut case why we dont want your ID your previous statement.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
“get to work on doing id science that is worthy of inclusion in the classroom, the laboratory, and the clinic”
The Utility of Design
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7pfs4b%24df0%241%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
More on Design and the OriC: An Update
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7fahi4%24cro%241%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
Design and the OriC: The Origin of OriC: A Design Event
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7brvtj%24hdg%241%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
The Evolution of the OriC: A Reply
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=633l0l%24sm7%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
The Bacterial Flagellum and IC
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=5o2793%24r49%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
Re: The Bacterial Flagellum and IC
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=5s3caq%24djh%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
Flagella, minimal complexity, and evolutionary noise
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7faih8%24eio%241%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
SIBO and Upcoming IC articles
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=6v64oi%2463g%241%40pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu
SIBO is Doing Well
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7kh4na%2454b%241%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
SIBO (was Re: Panspermia Hypothesis)
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7kh3tv%243bp%241%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
The Krebs Cycle Fails to Show Design
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=6v64vq%246ss%241%40pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu
The Utility of Design
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7pfs4b%24df0%241%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
Miller tries to discredit Behe
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=692vjq%245e9%241%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
An IC System That Suggests the Design of the Cell
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=6v65i9%248gm%241%40pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu
Design and the F-ATPases
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7brvbn%24gar%241%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
IC: Designed to Terraform
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7kh5h9%246jv%241%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
More on Science and Design
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7nskav%24jc4%241%40pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu
The Irreducibly Complex ATP Synthase
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=650n98%242ga%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
Fair is fair
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7ck2ad%24q2f%241%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
An irrelevant “abiogenesis” paper
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7kh4g1%244jn%241%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
Evolution needed to make sense of biology?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7nibqu%24o0l%241%40pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu
Analogy is at the heart of all design inferences.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990622075403.2355231A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Examples of Bioengineering
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990809215054.1512874F-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
October 26th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
[Navitron on October 25, 2007]”This is the problem where does a 3000 year old book about stoning people to death and conquering a neighboring tribe in gods name. Have any base in Science? I’m sorry point me to the appropriate verse in the bible that had to do with Biological Evolution? Or maybe that verse about how the earth obits the sun. Maybe something simple a verse about the earth being round. A little mention about that ‘other’ continent across the ocean?”
Does this work?:
1 Corinthians 2 (New International Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=2&version=31
6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom
among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or
of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
7 No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom
that has been hidden and that God destined for our
glory before time began.
2 Timothy 1, from verses 8-9 (New International Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%201;&version=31;
….God,
9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life– not
because of anything we have done but because of his
own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in
Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,….
Titus 1 (New International Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=titus%201;&version=31;
2 a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of
eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised
before the beginning of time,
3 and at his appointed season he brought his word to
light through the preaching entrusted to me by the
command of God our Savior….
Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking affirms that time had a beginning
on the basis of his and Roger Penrose’s mathematical demonstration of
the big bang singularity: see Hawking’s _A Brief History of Time_
pages 9 & 34 & 46 & 50 & 56 & 115 & 122 & 139 & 173, and his _Black
Holes and Baby Universes_ pages 46 & 75 & 89 & 91 & 167 & 172.
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of Time in the Big Bang
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
erroneous claims in the Babble
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1156770348.117388.43940%40i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
October 26th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
“the falsehood that Einstein was a theist”
Einstein: physics was designed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f67dF59po8jU1%40individual.net
“the idea that theists are somehow persecuted for their beliefs”
Fire the IDiots
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403121312.35d2e0c%40posting.google.com
October 26th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
[Jon]”read The blind watchmaker by Dawkins, as that will give you a good idea what Darwinists ‘really’ believe”
Do you believe biology has the appearance of having been designed by intelligence?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135748125.229401.252690%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
2006 Dawkins: life has “an overwhelming illusion of ‘design.’”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1172243872.240034.24900%408g2000cwh.googlegroups.com
2005 Dawkins: “the illusion of design”; “things that look designed (like birds”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1172240834.278579.111180%40q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
October 26th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
[Jon hall]”science works by looking at data and drawing conclusions. You have already drawn your conclusions, and are awaiting data. This is not scientific in the slightest.”
Is it the case that starting with simply non-living matter, life can come from non-living matter?
Is it the case that starting with simply non-living matter, a high, human-like level of intelligence can come from non-living matter?
//////////////////////////////////////////
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
some 1915-1999 doses of reality
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33arf3F3vjdggU1%40individual.net
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith, 1986 Andrew Scott, 1999 Freeman Dyson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33bltcF3rgbovU1%40individual.net
can atheism account for origination of 382 essential genes?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1164396926.582303.88630%40j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
October 26th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
“Now the important question: if it’s [ID is] ‘not a scientific theory,’ why on earth should we teach it in science classes?”
So that biologists can explore biology using ID as a metaphysical research program.
ID as a metaphysical research program
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Julie Thomas on biological design
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-329osfF3jopn9U1%40individual.net
October 26th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
“In response to your claim that ’scientific learning’ is being ‘extrapolated into concluding that there is NO GOD’ in public education, I can only ask where you’ve ever seen such a thing. I’ve never had a science class in which a teacher or a textbook even hinted at such a conclusion.”
Have you seen this textbook?:
Futuyma, Douglas J. 1979. _Evolutionary Biology_ (MA: Sinauer
Associates, Inc.), 565pp.
Have you seen this textbook?:
Luria, Salvador E., Stephen Jay Gould, and Sam Singer.
1981. _A View of Life_ (USA: The Benjamin/Cummings
Publishing Company, Inc.), 806pp.
This makes no sense if we live in a perfect world
created once and for all time by God. Why should God
have….
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
Fatally Flawed: Vestigial Organs, Biogeography, Homology,
and Embryology as Evidence for the Theory of Evolution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0305250118100.2340516-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
1979 Futuyma: Freud, Marx, & “Darwin hewed the final planks of…materialism”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1155218516.328357.117720%40q16g2000cwq.googlegroups.com
1979 Futuyma on “the positive implications of Darwinism”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407231747.5c38b6ef%40posting.google.com
October 26th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
[John]”I believe my convictions to be placed in what is absolutely true, everyone should have the right to choose for themselves from ALL of the evidence. A concerted effort to snuff out either idea cannot be permitted in a truly free society. I would personally have everyone come to know what I have found to be absolutely true and edifying but I have no right to withhold information which contradicts what I have found. It is reasonable to point out errors in this evidence but not to conceal it completely.”
Feynman on giving all the information; Dobzhansky, Mayr, Wilson, Gould, Futuyma, Dawkins, Sagan, Simpson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970912002214.12893C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Yours was a well-said post.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
“Ben Stein is just another hate mongering terrorist and should be treated as such.”
threatened and actual use of force by atheism-adherents
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135396265.419462.311690%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Yahya and Koster on the use of fear and force
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030811.4e8cd1bd%40posting.google.com
Feynman, R. Reid, and Berlinski on _ad hominems_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990102235105.11328B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
October 26th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Wow! This is amazing. Christians and believers in God are bashed for decades, and we can still present an intelligent argument in a calm, deliberate tone. Prick the skin of an Athiestic Evolutionist, though, and what comes out? Well:
-”Nonsensical” stories whose continuity falters with every word (too many Harry Potter books)
-Strange, Paranoid recitations, revealing that the writer thinks “he” is the chosen one, and is probably, even now, searching for Morpheus
-Continuous, voluminous posts of links to “other” writers of like mind, seeking to overwhelm the ignorant God-Believer
-Apparently unable to focus and engage in a real exchange, the writer falls back to images of rape, pillage, and other travesties whose relevance is clear only to the writer
-An intense, matriarchal, burning desire to protect our classrooms from “harm” by the brutal Christians - oh yeah, those classrooms so filled with hate and divisiveness by eradication of God over the past 40 years that police are needed even in Middle-Schools - yeah, I’m REALLY concerned about what BIG, BAD old Christianity might do to our classrooms - Heaven Forbid
Overall, we Christians and Believers in God are TOTALLY unimpressed by the (1) Lack of Civility, (2) Lack of Tolerance, (3) Lack of ability to present a cohesive argument and (4) Total lack of ANY form of humility. There is a certain freedom that comes from bowing, totally and humbly to the power that created all the who’s, what’s, when’s, where’s and why’s that have ever or will ever exist. To give one’s pride over to this power, is to fear no man.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Personally, I think that the origins of life are beyond the scope of science, and as such should not be taught at all in a science classroom. Some very well-meaning people attempted to use science to explain the origins of life and thought up some remarkable theories. Unfortunately, the evidence is falling apart. Science tried to go outside of what is observable and testable and started to make assumptions about things that can’t be observed or tested. Many have tried to recreate the events they think transpired to bring about life in a macro evolutionary sense and have failed. I hate to break it to the macro evolutionists, but if you take a cell, put it in the ideal mix, break it apart and leave all the pieces that actually made up the cell in the tube, you will not get a living organism. All of the pieces are there from a cell that once lived, and still you won’t get a living organism. Ideal conditions and all the parts are already there. But life will not happen on it’s own. Even one cell is so incredibly complex that it’s like saying a laptop could self assemble from its parts. So, how did life come to be? That’s not for science to bother with. Science is concerned with learning about the world and universe around for the betterment of mankind. Anyone who has studied molecular cell biology even in a minute fashion can tell you that a single cell is incredibly complex, a far cry from the gelatinous goo Darwin observed through his microscope. Small leaps in complexity are easy to swallow, from one ball of goo to two balls of goo. This is not the case. Clearly, natural processes could not have given rise to such incredible complexity. But science doesn’t need to concern itself with this. Why bother? The macro evolutionary theory is not repeatable, so it has no practical use in creating new life or enhancing old life… and yet scientists continue to push the theory as if it has some useful scientific implication. Well, it doesn’t. The only reason a scientist would waste his time on such things is to back up his worldviews and to intellectually impose them on others. I say let’s keep our worldviews to ourselves in the scientific arena and discuss and share them in a more appropriate setting, like a philosophy class. Imagine biology no longer being a soft science weighted down by the macro evolutionary faith. The time and effort wasted by scientists protecting their fragile faith could be so much better placed in curing cancer or finding a better way to harness the power of the sun, for example. So much time and energy has been wasted trying to force science to answer questions that are entirely outside of its scope.
As a side note, I’d like to say how honored I’ve been to have my voice heard among such obviously intelligent persons as those who have been posting to this forum. Yes, I’ve even enjoyed the non-ID posts. I’m also grateful for all the links to the abundant information being put forth by both sides.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
“spouting free-form bullshit; it’s so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence”
How many universes do you think:
currently exist?
have existed?
How could biological life have arisen?
What’s the “empirical evidence” in support of your belief about how biological life could have arisen?
/////////////////////////////////////////////
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith, 1986 Andrew Scott, 1999 Freeman Dyson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33bltcF3rgbovU1%40individual.net
Control - f/ “find” for: clay
Batch of replies to John Wilkins
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-389cg9F5lbshpU1%40individual.net
some 1915-1999 doses of reality
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33arf3F3vjdggU1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
October 26th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
The scientists may have the facts, but the creationists have the tactics…
October 26th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
[John M Lundy]”Finally, I would put forth the bat, supposedly descended from a mouse.”
Schindewolf; Simpson on bats
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10001222211190.17988-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
“On an organism level mutation, the supposed mechanism by which natural selection works, has an extremely negative effect, cancer and tumors.”
one literature search for “mutation”; mutation URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37elv4F5260vbU1%40individual.net
October 26th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
“the magnitude of these travesties pale in comparison to those committed by athiestic regimes in the 20th-21st centuries - Pol Pot (1.5 million deaths), Stalin (50 million), Hitler (21 million), Mao Tse-Tung (3.5 million) and Kim Jong-Il (1-2 million)
-These deaths were and are inflicted by men who essentially proclaim(ed) themselves to be God”
Marxist-Leninist atheism-adherents responsible for the killing of 94+ million
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1167099703.362978.48000%40i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler’s actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
become like famous mass-killer atheists, and have others worship you
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1152629227.581932.229990%40s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Satan’s expulsion from heaven; worship of one’s self
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1155401734.714656.220870%40m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
October 27th, 2007 at 3:01 am
@david (please for the love of god (pun intended) use http://tinyurl.com/ for super long urls much easier on the site rendering)
Suddenly spamming links that were mostly written by yourself is proof? Yours and two other peoples posts on newsgroups now counts as peer reviewed science? I’m sorry when did Personal Incredulity and Anecdotal evidence count as science. You should try refuting evolution instead of throwing Ad hominems at Darwin. For someone who supposedly takes the bible as a moral guide you should be ashamed by being intellectually dishonest misquoting, quote mining and adding in your own Foundational Biases. And lastly… STOP QUOTE MINING Einstein “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” & “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” ~Albert Einstein
“2 a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of
eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised
before the beginning of time,
3 and at his appointed season he brought his word to
light through the preaching entrusted to me by the
command of God our Savior.”
The biblical verses… Can a verse in the bible ever say anything without using savior, god, christ, preach, wisdom or grace 8 times in the same sentence. How about proving god/ID/whatever without invoking the bible? So you wanna drop the bible in front of secular American science classes, instead of science books…? So instead of getting kids interested in Biology, Biotechnology, Chemistry. You want them praising the lord, casting out demons and praying for those with cancer so god will heal them. Do kids learning actual science make you that mad?
If someone is breaking into your house, who do you call first god or 911? If your having a heart attack do you call your priest, paster and god or do you call the ambulance?
Your a atheist to did you know that? Yes your a atheist in regards to Zeus, Thor, Osiris, Aman Ra, Gilgamesh, Allah(even though its your god interpreted by another sect of the Abrahamic faith) and 1000+ other gods, I just take it one god further
About the “athiestic regimes” your an atheist to so your judging yourself in that regard also. So in your world, one persons actions while having certain views suddenly equate to everyone with those views as being accountable for what said person does. Thats like saying because you were a spectator in a football game and because other spectators for your team started a riot, now all the fans of said football team have to answer to what a few people did in that group. Sometimes you have to think alittle about what you want say before you end up saying it.
October 27th, 2007 at 3:05 am
@John M
Again I think semantics are really being mixed up here with the word “faith” people of faith have a very different view of it then I’d assume non believers would. “Evolution” is another word I feel is being misconstrued by people of faith. You have to take it at its root meaning “any process of formation or growth; development” Read its direct definition, evolution of society, evolution of music, evolution in technology, evolution of literature. Disassociate any emotional response that you get from this word. Forget everything you’ve ever learned from anyone about this word from your parents, teacher, pastor anything. All it means is a change or growth in something, its not all bad like your parents taught you its a word that describes real things.
@Allen
“Overall, we Christians and Believers in God are TOTALLY unimpressed by the (1) Lack of Civility, (2) Lack of Tolerance, (3) Lack of ability to present a cohesive argument and (4) Total lack of ANY form of humility. There is a certain freedom that comes from bowing, totally and humbly to the power that created all the who’s, what’s, when’s, where’s and why’s that have ever or will ever exist. To give one’s pride over to this power, is to fear no man.”
(3) Obviously we can since Creationism isn’t in schools right now and every time its been brought to a court science always comes out on top. I guess we don’t lack as much as you might think.
(1)(2)(4) Religion and religious people think that they have built some kind of wall around religion. That it’s immune to criticism, I’m sorry but I’m tearing that wall down. Again playing the “there criticizing us card” they’re so intolerant (Tolerance what a nice buzz word in America these days. I like to use it differently though, ie. I can tolerate the temperature in a hot room, I can tolerate my girlfriend nagging at me.) there so mean there so hateful. You criticize what shirt your going to wear today, if your a manager you criticize your employees making sure there being productive, you criticize your Gardner if you thinkg hes not doing a good job. Everything is subject to criticism, but suddenly this certain area called “religion” is suddenly not!? WHAT?!!?? What says I don’t have the right to criticize you or your belief? Because it says so in your book? Because 2 billion other people say so? well 1.3 billion other people tell you your book is wrong and that the word of Mohammad is the true word… And you have the gall to tell me or try to tell schools that your right, what about what the Muslims think is right? what about the Jews? Hindus? Pagans? Scientologists? You TELL people what they can and cant do WITH THERE OWN BODY’S, you tell them there going to burn for all eternity in hell because they don’t adhere to your “religious” sense of morality. AND YOU ASK!! You ASK why we lack civility, tolerance and humility. Yes “bowing, totally and humbly to the power that created all” is all he wants bow your little disobedient head and ask him for forgiveness. There is such a place on this earth as your describing “To give one’s pride over to this power, is to fear no man.” Its called North Korea, forever praise be to Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il
After you’ve had open heart surgery should you thank god or should you thank the Cardiologist who kept you alive for years, the Surgeons, Anaesthetist, Perfusionist to the dozen or so Physician Assistants to the Nurses and Physical Therapists who helped you recover. Ex-ray Technicians, Phlebotomists the people who brought you your meals, and the people who did the mountains of laundry for the long hospital stay, and messy surgery’s. And thank god it all you can say? Good luck there buddy. I’m sticking with science. I’m sorry for going off on a tangent, but lets ask the 100 million dollar question now.
What do you/your religion/your organizations (Intelligent Design, Creationism) have to add to science?
October 27th, 2007 at 3:37 am
People need to be careful when they talk about “Darwinism”. Darwin had a lot of ideas, some good and some bad. The theory of evolution has been observed in nature, and has no evidence to contradict it, hence it has wide acceptance. To say that evolution does not exist based on NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE is meaningless. It is not science. Science is based on observation - and no observation has yet given evidence of Intelligent Design. ID is not science.
October 27th, 2007 at 3:48 am
I just read some of the more recent comments as well, and I have to say that I think people fear atheists way too much. One post cites several atheist regimes that have killed lots of people. Britain is basically a Christian nation and they are responsible for the subjugation of many foreign peoples, look at India for instance. Britain basically made India into a third-world nation by colonizing there (read Late Victorian Holocausts by Mike Davis for context). You can’t point to a few evil people that were atheists as evidence that all atheists are evil. Look at all the Christians (or Jews, or Muslims, or etc…) that have been responsible for a great many deaths throughout history. And seriously, since when are Christians a persecuted minority?
October 27th, 2007 at 4:00 am
@Indarctos
Well it depends on the demographic of the topic/website since this a blog for the religious based & endorsed movie its obvious theres gonna be more theists here. Since david so kindly spewed his links all over the place I think I’ll throw some out as well (and there not my own postings >_>)
TED is an annual conference that brings together the world’s most fascinating thinkers and doers, who are challenged to give the talk of their lives (in 18 minutes).
http://www.ted.com/talks
People who dismiss evolution off hand probably know nothing about it except what there parents and pastors say. Clears up misconceptions like evolution being “Evolution is a theory about the origin of life” Its about “ORIGIN OF SPECIES” it says nothing about the beginnings of life which 95% of people seem to not realize.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/index.shtml
I’m putting these two up just for david (notice any similarities to yourself after watching these?) If your unsure on wear you stand, or a ID supporter that wants to expand there horizons be sure to watch the other videos in the “Why do people laugh at creationists?” series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzDYVFa1TR0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKPvWqgYk
The AAI Talks (Atheist Alliance) atheist are not some evil immoral godless heathens. I know most theists will not wanna watch these but if you support ID so blindly that you wont even take the time to watch the opposing view, then what ground do you have on saying anything about it.
http://tinyurl.com/3aulub
October 27th, 2007 at 8:19 am
John Lundy says it well. What really is the point of science chasing a proof it can never prove? Science should stick to the betterment of Man.
October 27th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Another NASA lie; or worse?
So we get yet another article trying to tell us a so-called “Big bang” ever happened:
“Cold spot could be relic of Big Bang
CHICAGO (Reuters) - A cold spot in the oldest radiation in the universe could be the first sign of a cosmic glitch that might have originated shortly after the Big Bang, British and Spanish scientists said on Thursday.
They think this spot — detected on satellite maps of microwave radiation — might be a cosmic defect or texture, a holdover from the universe’s infancy. But they said their theory would need confirmation.
Such defects or textures, they theorize, reflect a flaw in the pattern of the universe as it formed — think of a snag in pantyhose or a flaw in a diamond.
“If the cold spot is indeed proven to be a texture, it will completely change our view of how the universe evolved following the Big Bang,” said Mike Hobson, of the Astrophysics Group at the University of Cambridge’s Cavendish Laboratory, whose study appears in the journal Science.”"
Nevermind that “brits and spanish” get to use good US-funded tax-money; but they use it to try and prove yet again the mythical “evolution”? What if it was the Devil that tricked their instruments instead?
October 27th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
[Indarctos on October 26, 2007]”The scientists may have the facts”
Which scientists?
Grasse
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980608234718.51C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
1922 Wilhelm Johannsen, 1869 Louis Agassiz (a creationist)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981004230112.14734B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
1982 Saunders & Ho and Gould on neo-Darwinian vagueness; abstract of and extracts from 1977 G&E _Paleobiology_ paper
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312182040.1e80e3b8%40posting.google.com
1922 Bateson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990810225527.4089209B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1922 Bateson, Gould on the major synthesists, 1982 Saunders & Ho
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990131235540.126906A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
1893 Weismann
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9911282317410.13320-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
1981 Francis Crick: “plausibility is not enough,” is “usually contaminated with our unstated prejudices”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312241905.3fa22296%40posting.google.com
1981 Francis Crick: “there is too much speculation running after too few facts”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410041659.1c8da045%40posting.google.com
1998 Steele, Lindley, & Blanden praise Berlinski
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503201303.48e9d206%40posting.google.com
1982 Schindel: “gradual morphological transitions… are missing”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312132052.d07eb6e%40posting.google.com
1980 Eldredge: “time to reexamine” theory of NS
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311302356490.22520-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
Gould’s 1980 rejection of the extrapolationist model; 1981 Lovtrup
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990222232808.1486760C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1979 Futuyma on gradualism, _Archaeopteryx_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990125233303.654987B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Schindewolf; Simpson on bats
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10001222211190.17988-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Goldschmidt’s 1940 challenge to neo-Darwinists
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9910222320320.1712214-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Simpson on rapidity/ “quantum evolution”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10001152331430.1317621-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
1996 Torbjorn Fagerstrom, Peter Jagers, Peter Schuster, & Eors
Szathmary
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10001122031240.8486-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
October 27th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Ok david its getting f**king annoying with the link spamming, we don’t want your goddamn links of your own “personal” scientific opinions.
Again I ask what do you have to “ADD” to biology and the science in general? Not just “REFUTATIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE HARD LIFE TIME WORK”
Show me what you have done to contribute to science?
October 27th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
@allen
“What really is the point of science chasing a proof it can never prove? Science should stick to the betterment of Man.”
Its sad to hear people like you talk as if they know anything about science, stick with what you know buddy casting out demons and praising the lord.
So 99% of actual biologists in the field doing there research and using evolution as a module are all wrong? 99% of biologists say evolution is observable, usable and testable and you who probably works in another field suddenly has input. Thats like a plummer suddenly having input on how I do my work as a network administrator. He says that me using a Linux server on network is wrong and because of his personal beliefs I should use windows server 2003 and he doesn’t believe in my Debian server. How about another example, do you hate it when someone thats not in your field suddenly tells you how to do your job. Of course everybody hates that, and now your doing it to the people who actually work in those fields so unless you actually work in those fields, you have no grounds to criticize them or there work unless you know what the hell your talking about.
October 27th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
“Cold spot could be relic of Big Bang.” (?????) Ok.
Must it always be an ever changing thing all the time? I thought their previous Big Bang model was confirmed. Now, it’s going to change? Oh, but of course, new scientific advances in Evolution Only… And if this so called cold spot does get confirmed, and I’m sure it will … it could change the whole view of how things evolved after their first big bang theory?
It seems the big bang - evolution - are always all over the place as far as, the original ideas are never concrete … there are always re-writes, re-writes, and continuous re-writes. Why is this? You would think after 150 years at least, some of the imagination used for telling tales by many, would have been confirmed with time … but it seems the more time that goes by (Darwinism evolution/people-to-particles-evolution, molecules-to-man evo or theory of evo) whatever you’d like to call it - that the new finds just push all that evo stuff back further, and never advances it at all.
If there is any little thing that can be used by this idea of evolution, then use it, but evolution does not hold the key or ALL the answers to everything that we see in our world/universe. Macroevolution did not happen, there is no common ancestor, all did not evolve, descend, nor does anything or anyone have any ancestors as far as evolution.
I’ve already classified the talkorigins site as science fiction IMHO. Words, imaginary drawings by man and a few skulls lined up in a row is not proof. I’d like to see actual data, such as close to 100% fossil finds that show one thing evolving from and into another. Photographs - not drawings. No one can conclude from fossil fragments one thing evolving to another. Oh yeah, that’s where punctuated equilibrium comes in … because the fossils are not found.
How did those dinos really die? Rapid burial by water?
oh, yes many theories on that too. Dr. Monty White said, “Let me give you what the evolutionists have said about how the dinosaurs have become extinct. These have actually been taught mind you. Okay, their first theory, dinosaurs became extinct because of constipation. Their 2nd theory, dinosaurs became extinct because of air pollution. 3rd, they said, dinosaurs became extinct because of sunburn. Their 4th theory to dinosaurs becoming extinct; was an asteroid/comet impact. Their 5th theory was a series of comet impact. Their 6th theory, dinosaurs became extinct now to a gas explosion. And last but not least, dinosaurs have not become extinct at all; they have merely evolved into … birds.”
So, we do have dinosaurs today, but they are birds. So, all you parakeet owners and other birds you may have, are actually dinosaurs. Somehow, I’ll never see the bird the same way again … it’s a dinosaur!
October 27th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
particles-to-people evo, sorry for the typo.
October 27th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Evolutionists Motto -
http://marilynoakley.com/evos_motto.jpg
October 27th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Thanks for the input. By the way, you spelled “plumber” wrong:
” … Thats like a plummer suddenly having input on how I do my work as a network administrator …”
October 27th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
You guys still don’t get it. We snake handlers, demon casters and praisers are not saying that biological changes are not real:
-Sure, virus mutate; otherwise we’d use the same Flu vaccine year to year; viruses are simple, so they survive “major” mutations
-Not so much so with vertebrates and other, higher organisms; “major” mutations here much more likely to be lethal
-We’re just saying that the organisms and changes thereto are NOT RAMDOM
-These alterations and their implications were DESIGNED; we are simply observing them, with about as much REAL understanding as a newborn observing an orchestra playing a Mahler symphony
-So, we’re observing the same things occurring; we just don’t agree on why they’re happening, and no amount of science will ever prove they’re not happening FOR THE REASON that believers in God know they’re happening
-Like John Lundy said earlier, what’s the point in trying to prove us wrong? To go beyond simple, beneficial use of the knowledge, is simply to push one’s political agenda, and this has gone on for 40 years; it has to stop
October 27th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
This new peer review paper has poked so many holes in Evolutionist claims that Macro-evolution is a fact. Talkorgins,and other evolution Blogs are attempting to suppress, or misrepresent the facts, because it stands as an absolute contradiction to their beliefs, and brings into question the integrity of the information they have been preaching all of these years. Hell, they are still hanging on to vestigial organs, and junk DNA as supporting evidence dispite their falsification.
The Biological Big bang truthfully states:
-No evidence of transitional fossils
-No evidence of mutation of species, but stasis
-All the leading Evolutionary scientist acknowledge the lack of evidence!
Hypothesis:
The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
Eugene V Koonin
National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20894, USA
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21#IDA2DWZO
Unbiased Intelligent inquiry is required to distinguish why science constantly needs to self-correct its evolutionary model!
October 27th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
The Church of Jesus Fucking Christ does not approve of your message.
October 27th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Navitron I have to respectfully disagree that refuting a persons discovers is a bad thing. That’s the whole point behind pear-reviewed journals. Making sure a person’s work is completely correct is an essential part of science. Perhaps instead of being angry for someone refuting hard work scientists should spend more time making their work better. If the work a scientist does and the theories are sound, they become scientific laws because they are above abjection. If a person is objecting to work and has found reasons to refute the work, then perhaps the work needs to be re evaluated. I don’t hear anyone refuting the laws of gravity.
October 28th, 2007 at 4:42 am
@John M
Thats the thing there refuting it and just saying “god did it” there adding nothing to it. I’m all for refuting and challenging current models, but I know ID people have an agenda and no real science.
@Philip
“The Biological Big bang”
I like the first comment of that paper. “Well, since it is clear that this paper will be on every ID/creationist blog on the planet in under 12 hours, I might as well put in my 2 cents early.
I will say at the outset that I have immense respect for Eugene Koonin and his contributions to numerous fields, and criticize his work with some trepidation. However, I think with this paper he has unfortunately tumbled into a series of mistakes that have repeatedly afflicted those trying to understand macroevolution without taking sufficient care in examining the concepts they are relying upon.”
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IICgaps.shtml
“-All the leading Evolutionary scientist acknowledge the lack of evidence!”
Thats the most bold faced lie I’ve ever heard. This is why we don’t want ID, look how people completely don’t care about our kids science education. Even going so far as lying, and don’t post one of those “300 people signed non evolution things” project steve completely decimates any creationists list.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002522889_evolution27.html
@Mar (so you wanna play the images game ey?)
Creationist Motto -
http://tinyurl.com/ywd4fp
http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/oese/CartoonScale_use.jpg
Creationists Wildest Wet Dream… http://tinyurl.com/39474e & http://tinyurl.com/7fy99
October 28th, 2007 at 7:45 am
[Navitron on October 27, 2007]”How about proving god/ID/whatever without invoking the bible?”
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
Below appears arguments and lines of evidence against materialism and
for intelligent design by:
a non-material existing-yet-never-beginning-to-exist intellect/mind that
is far superior to humans in terms of abilities and level of intelligence.
What was around first: mind, or matter?
Can matter do all the formation of what is seen in biology, i.e.
starting with simply matter, can biology come out of matter?
Is matter infinitely-old, or did matter begin to exist?
Did not-material mind/intelligence create matter-energy, and construct
biology out of matter?
Was the first mind, the first high level of intelligence, present in
a) biological organisms, specifically humans,
b) a not-human, material entity, or
c) a not-human, not-material entity?
I’m looking at a car, which I know for a fact began to exist (because
the universe in which the car resides began to exist).
Question: Which viewpoint accounts well, and accounts better, for the
origination of that car?:
viewpoint a) totally-mindless-at-every-level processes are responsible
for that car’s beginning-to-exist, or
viewpoint b) the input of mind/intelligence was involved in the
origination of that car.
Ponder, if you would, the following:
the second law of thermodynamics and the Big Bang theory’s
_ _ and gravity’s implications that physics began to exist,
the fact that physics and biology exhibit the appearance of
_ _ having been the product of mind/intelligence,
the origin-of-biological-life question and the fact that
_ _ brilliant chemists and biologists have thus far been
_ _ unable to intelligently-design life starting with
_ _ non-living matter,
the strong parallels between human-constructed engineering
_ _ and engineering within biology,
the many instances of interrelatedness/ connectedness present
_ _ in biological systems in which an indispensable core of
_ _ parts must be present and functioning for the systems in
_ _ question to operate,
correspondingly, the enormous number of harmful and
_ _ neutral mutations versus an absence of mutations that
_ _ could plausibly be construed as possibly being able to
_ _ contribute to the appearance of new biological
_ _ structures having new functions,
the enormous quantity of meaningful information encoded in
_ _ biological organisms’ genomes,
the fossil record’s pattern of abrupt appearance followed by
_ _ stasis,
breeders’ and fruit fly experiment results revealing limits to
_ _ what changes can be brought about by the application
_ _ of intelligent breeders and laboratory scientists.
Question: Which viewpoint accommodates well, and accommodates better,
the above data?:
viewpoint a) the philosophy of materialism, which says that only
material matter exists, or
viewpoint b) the intelligent design viewpoint, which says that a
not-material entity– perhaps a committee of designers, and that at
least at the moments it created, existed without having had a beginning
to its existence– created matter/physics, and– in all likelihood that
same not-material entity, in keeping with considerations of simplicity–
in addition created biology?
(Biology clearly began to exist since the universe in which biology
resides began to exist, and almost as clearly physics began to exist
considering the second law, so the postulation of material designers of
biology who themselves must have begun to exist is not a viable option:
we would have the problem of how they originated– and they would’ve had
to have originated/ begun to exist– and their postulation wouldn’t help
at all with the question of how to account for the origination of and
seeming-design of physics.
In short, postulating material designers of biology fails:
1) because the universe in which they reside began to exist, and
therefore they began to exist, and you would thus have to account for
_their_ origination, and
2) you would still have to account for the origination of physics via
the action of a non-material mind/intelligence.
It would be far simpler to say that the non-material intellect
responsible for the origination of physics was also responsible for the
origination of biology. +Schapiro, 119)
Humans have a much better perspective than do the fish that reside in
water, fish having limited awareness of what’s out there, fish being
confined to a waterworld.
The mind/intelligence responsible for the origination of physics and
biology has a much better perspective than humans, humans having limited
awareness of what is out there, humans being confined to the spatial
dimensions of length width and height and confined to under 130 years’
worth of a temporal dimension in which humans can only go forward.
In short, humans are to waterbound fish, as the superintellect
responsible for physics and biology is to material-world-bound humans.
Humans have a far higher level of intelligence than do dolphins and
chimpanzees.
In a similar manner, the mind/intelligence responsible for physics and
biology and humans has a far, far higher level of intelligence than
humans have.
In short, in terms of degree/level of intelligence: humans are to
dolphins and chimpanzees, as the mind/intellect responsible for physics
and biology is to humans.
1962 Oparin: “embittered war… has been waged between the two
irreconcilable philosophic camps of idealism and materialism”
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407240610.4ae98f%40posting.google.com
1940 Haldane on materialism
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=s0c890946imhfig6q7uq1cid7hhj68ppbs%404ax.com
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
concept of “blindwatchmaking”
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
+Cairns-Smith, 32-33.
====================================.
Table of Contents
Second law of thermodynamics
Big Bang
Order in physics
Origin of life
Complexity in biology
Parallels between human-constructed engineering and engineering within
biology
Information content in biology
Fossil record pattern of abrupt appearance followed by stasis
Breeders’ and fruit fly experiment observations
Theoretical considerations from genetics and known mutations
Alleged “parallel” and “convergent” blindwatchmaking
Specialness of earth and the universe as a hospitable
_ _ place for human life
Shroud of Turin body image
====================================.
** Second law of thermodynamics
going forward:
There are some individuals who wish to believe that matter-energy
didn’t begin to exist but rather is infinitely-old. However, such an
option is not possible given the second law of thermodynamics:
Premise 1: If the universe (or a collection of universes) was/is
infinitely old, then it would have run down by now in accord with the
second law of thermodynamics.
Premise 2: The universe (or a collection of universes) has not yet run
down– it has not yet suffered “heat death,” meaning that everywhere is
the same cold temperature, a fraction of a degree above absolute 0.
Conclusion: The universe (or a collection of universes) is not
infinitely old.
To summarize this modus tollens argument form,
if infinitely old, then rundown;
not rundown;
thus, not infinitely old.
going backward:
Eddington formulation of an argument involving the 2nd law
of thermodynamics for “a beginning of the present order of Nature”:
Eddington, Sir Arthur S. 21 March 1931. “The End of the World: from
the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics” _Nature_, 447-453. This was a
presidential address to the Mathematical Association, delivered on 5
January 1931. On 449-450, starting with the opening lines of the
section “The Beginning of Time”:
_ _ It is more interesting to look in the opposite
_ _ direction– towards the past. Following time
_ _ backwards, we find more and more organisation
_ _ in the world. If we are not stopped earlier, we must come
_ _ to a time when the matter and energy of the world had the
_ _ maximum possible organisation. To go back further is
_ _ impossible. We have come to an abrupt end of space-time–
_ _ only we generally call it the ‘beginning’. I have no
_ _ ‘philosophical axe to grind’ in this discussion.
_ _ Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present
_ _ order of Nature is repugnant to me. …. I should like to
_ _ find a genuine loophole.
====================================.
** Big Bang
2nd law against infinitely-old many universes speculation: see above.
Matter-energy, the spatial dimensions of length, width, and height, and
our temporal dimension of time began to exist in the big bang.
In modus ponens argument form, an opening move in an argument from the
big bang for the God-of-deism’s existence:
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist, whether through a conversion of
_ _ matter-energy into another form of matter-energy, or whether
_ _ through a creation out of absolutely nothing (what I need), has
_ _ one or more causes, i.e. has one or more precipitating factors,
_ _ responsible for its beginning to exist.
Premise 2: Expanding spacetime began to exist in a creation out of
_ _ nothing.
Conclusion: Expanding spacetime has factors responsible for its
_ _ beginning to exist.
The observed expansion of the universe is similar to the movement
following an explosion. When air is blown into a balloon with dimes
representing galaxy clusters taped to it, the balloon expands, and just
as it expands, so the universe expands. When going back in time, e.g.,
by deflating the balloon, the universe becomes smaller and smaller.
Hubble’s discovery in the 1920s that the universe is expanding implies
that the universe’s _expansion_ had a beginning, and _doesn’t_
necessarily mean that material existence had a beginning.
According to Einstein’s formulation of gravity (i.e. Einstein’s general
theory of relativity) together with the fact that the universe is
expanding, it appears that the universe (and time itself) had a
beginning in the Big Bang creation-out-of-nothing event.
The Discovery That the Universe Is Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
+explain: reinforced by origin of life.
Books:
Ross, Hugh. 2001. _The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest
_ _ Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God_ (Colorado
_ _ Springs, CO: NavPress Publishing Group), 266pp.
Heeren, Fred. 1995, ______. _Show Me God: What the Message from
_ _ Space is Telling Us About God_ (Wheeling, Illinois: Searchlight
_ _ Publications), 336pp.
chapter in Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. 2004. _I Don’t Have
_ _ Enough Faith to Be an Atheist_ (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway
_ _ Books), 447pp.
====================================.
** Order in physics
The world of physics exhibits the appearance of having been the product
of mind/intelligence. When a child, Albert Einstein became an atheist;
as a theoretical physicist, Einstein rejected atheism and thought a
superior mind designed physics.
Einstein thought physics was designed. Physics has the appearance of
having been designed. Unity of physics.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-36k8s1F531btmU1%40individual.net
on “order” and varieties of “complexity”
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407211714.53153989%40posting.google.com
====================================.
** Origin of life
Because matter-energy began to exist, consequently the world of biology
began to exist. Mind/intelligence was needed for the first biological
lifeform to originate. Humans have not yet been able to create life
from non-living matter. Consequently, the mind/intelligence responsible
for the creation of the first biological lifeform was far, far more
brilliant than humankind’s most brilliant biochemists.
a) experiment results
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith, 1986 Andrew Scott, 1999 Freeman Dyson
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-33bltcF3rgbovU1%40individual.net
some 1915-1999 doses of reality
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-33arf3F3vjdggU1%40individual.net
fabled primordial soup never existed
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-37mt00F5fb7kmU1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
b) theoretical considerations
2001 Gerald Schroeder, 1999 Paul Davies, 1992 Hubert Yockey, & 1968
Michael Polanyi: [Davies]”life cannot be ‘written into’ the laws of
physics” presently known
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-33b2blF3tdum0U1%40individual.net
on “order” and varieties of “complexity”
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407211714.53153989%40posting.google.com
Books
Cairns-Smith, A.G. 1985. _Seven Clues to the Origin
_ _ of Life: A Scientific Detective Story_ (Great Britain:
_ _ Cambridge University Press), 131pp.
Shapiro, Robert. 1986. _Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the
_ _ Creation of Life on Earth_ (Great Britain: Penguin
_ _ Books), 332pp.
Rana, Fazale and Hugh Ross (creationists). 2004. _Origins
_ _ of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off_ (USA:
_ _ NavPress), 298pp.
chapter in Denton, Michael. 1986. _Evolution: A Theory in
_ _ Crisis_ (USA: Adler & Adler), 368pp.
chapter in Johnson, Phillip E. 1993. _Darwin on Trial_
_ _ (Illinois: InterVarsity Press), 220pp.
chapter in
Davis, Percival, Dean H. Kenyon, Charles B. Thaxton. 1993. _Of
_ _ Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological
_ _ Origins_ (Dallas, Texas: Haughton Publishing Company),
_ _ 170pp.
Davies, Paul. 1999. _The Fifth Miracle: The Search for
_ _ the Origin and Meaning of Life_ (New York: Simon &
_ _ Schuster), 304pp.
_Mystery_, cite in
1984 Dean Kenyon
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-34j9b2F4a5gioU1%40individual.net
More recommended books
Johnson, Phillip E. 1997. _Defeating Darwinism by
_ _ Opening Minds_ (Illinois: InterVarsity Press), 131pp.
Johnson, Phillip E. 2000. _The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the
_ _ Foundations of Naturalism_ (Illinois: InterVarsity Press),
_ _ 191pp.
Broom, Neil. 2001. _How Blind Is the Watchmaker?:
_ _ Nature’s Design & The Limits of Naturalistic Science_
_ _ (Illinois: InterVarsity Press), 224pp.
Behe, Michael J. 1996. _Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical
_ _ Challenge to Evolution_ (NY: The Free Press), 307pp.
====================================.
** Complexity in biology
a) parts working-together/ in-collaboration to make a functioning whole,
as with much human-designed technology
+Cairns-Smith, 5, 22, 24, 39, 58, 63, 64.
b) fabulously complex and sophisticated, with that immense complexity
being necessary for the operation of something that fabricates copies of
itself
Cairns-Smith, A.G. 1985. _Seven Clues to the Origin of
Life: A Scientific Detective Story_ (Great Britain:
Cambridge University Press), 131pp. A paragraph on 22:
_ _ This is perhaps the most technical chapter in the book
_ _ (although it is not that bad). Some readers may want
_ _ just to skim it (or skip all but this page if they must),
_ _ taking on trust the main burden of argument that it
_ _ presents– that the workings of all life on the Earth are
_ _ seen to be fabulously complex and sophisticated on the
_ _ molecular scale. Present-day organisms are manifestly
_ _ pieces of ‘high technology’, and what is more seem to be
_ _ necessarily so.
On 29, a sentence and three paragraphs:
_ _ An _E. coli_ just is a complicated machine too, and I
_ _ think that _any_ free-living nucleic-acid-based forms of
_ _ life would have to be.
_ _ Take just part of our system– the automatic protein
_ _ synthesiser. Any such machinery, however it is made,
_ _ is surely going to be clever, complicated engineering;
_ _ because it is a complicated and difficult job that has
_ _ to be done.
_ _ Ask any organic chemist how long it takes to put
_ _ together a small protein, say one with 100 amino acids
_ _ in it. Or go and look up the recipe for such an operation
_ _ as it is written out in scientific journals. You will find
_ _ pages and pages of tightly written instructions, couched
_ _ in terms that assume your expertise in handling
_ _ laboratory apparatus and require you to use many rather
_ _ specialised and well-purified chemical reagents and
_ _ solvents. And the result of following such instructions?
_ _ If you are lucky a few thousandths of a gram of product
_ _ from kilograms of starting materials.
_ _ Or go and read all the details and examine the
_ _ engineering drawings for a laboratory machine that can
_ _ build protein chains automatically. (If you want to buy
_ _ one it will cost you more than a video-recorder.) You
_ _ will be impressed by how clever such machines are–
_ _ and not surprised that _E. coli_’s machine is clever too.
_ _ It would have to be, wouldn’t it?
unity in biology: Cairns-Smith.
====================================.
** Parallels between human-constructed engineering and engineering
within biology
in
Biology has the appearance of having been designed by intelligence.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-36pqk2F55ibnrU1%40individual.net
====================================.
** Information content in biology
How does a seeingwatchmakingist account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human? a bacterium? the first biological lifeform?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-348nj6F47evohU1%40individual.net
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith; How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information
originate?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32gv43F3jsrelU1%40individual.net
on “order” and varieties of “complexity”
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407211714.53153989%40posting.google.com
“Evolutionary biologists have failed to recognize that they work with
two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that
of matter…. These two domains can never be brought together in any
kind of the sense usually implied by the term ‘reductionism.’… The
gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base
pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the
medium, it’s not the message. Maintaining this distinction between the
medium and the message is absolutely indispensable to clarity of thought
about evolution.”[George C. Williams in 1992, 1994, or 1995. Cited in
Phillip E. Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds_ (1997), 70.]
DNA and the information it records are two entirely different things.
E.g., a biologist can sequence a genome, and put that sequence on paper.
The information, which was originally recorded on DNA, is now recorded
on paper. When one person said “There are already known processes which
can account for DNA,” I wondered whether “There are already known
processes that can account for the existence of nucleotides” was meant,
or “There are already known processes that can account for the existence
of the information recorded via nucleotides.”
====================================.
** Fossil record pattern of abrupt appearance followed by stasis
Cambrian explosion:
Starting 530 million years ago, a large proportion of biology’s phyla
burst on the scene, appearing at least between 0 years and 10 million
years, and very probably between 0 years and 5 million years.
Schindewolf, Otto H. 1950, 1993. _Basic Questions in Paleontology:
Geologic Time, Organic Evolution, and Biological Systematics_,
translated from the 1950 German edition by Judith Schaefer, edited and
with an afterword by Wolf-Ernst Reif, foreword by Stephen Jay Gould
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press), 467pp. Schindewolf was a
blindwatchmakingist, paleontologist, and saltationist. On 193-4, the
first seven paragraphs (out of 12 paragraphs total) of the section
“The Phases of Evolution”:
_ _ More important than the general fact already discussed, that the
_ _ rate of evolution in individual animal and plant groups varies
_ _ considerably, is the circumstance that also _within one and the
_ _ same lineage_ there are far-reaching differences in the intensity
_ _ of transformation and that these follow a very particular
_ _ pattern.
_ _ Evolutionary transformation does not flow like a smooth, peaceful
_ _ river but rather like a stream with many series of waterfalls,
_ _ rapids, and sharply changing gradients. Evolutionary development
_ _ is episodic– it proceeds in phases, or in _quantum leaps_; it
_ _ exhibits an unmistakable _periodicity_. The unfolding of
_ _ lineages is divided into evolutionary periods or cycles of
_ _ differing magnitudes, in each of which _three phases of differing
_ _ evolutionary rates and differing modes of development can be
_ _ distinguished_.
_ _ At the onset of a cycle, there is a brief period of abrupt
_ _ development of forms. In this phase, a number of different kinds
_ _ of structural organizations or types are established rapidly,
_ _ even explosively, in large transformationl steps; during the next
_ _ phase, these types continue to evolve while retaining their basic
_ _ nature unchanged. We call this _first phase_ the _origin of
_ _ types_, or _typogenesis_.
_ _ This is followed by a _second phase_, one of _type constancy_, or
_ _ _typostasis_, which entails a progressive elaboration,
_ _ diversification, and differentiation within the framework of the
_ _ basic form but does not alter the basic structural design itself.
_ _ In this phase, evolution is slow, very gradual, and smooth,
_ _ proceeding in small, individual steps.
_ _ This typostatic phase usually lasts much longer than the first,
_ _ typogenetic period and longer also than the _third phase_–
_ _ _typolysis_, or the _dissolution of types_, which brings each
_ _ evolutionary cycle to a close. This phase is characterized by
_ _ multiple indications of decline, degeneration, and the loosening
_ _ of the morphological constraints embodied in the type.
_ _ Overspecialization and gigantism in the lineages destined for
_ _ extinction give this period its special mark.
_ _ Because this periodicity is an extremely widespread and very
_ _ general phenomenon, it was recognized early and has been
_ _ described in various ways. Thus, Ernst Haeckel spoke of
_ _ _Epacme_, _Acme_, and _Paracme_– of a rising, a flourishing, and
_ _ a fading away of lineages; later, Johannes Walther spoke of
_ _ _anastrophes_– period[s] of profuse, turbulent diversification
_ _ of lineages alternating with periods of slower, more gradual
_ _ evolution. Rudolf Wedekind described this set of circumstances
_ _ in his _Virenz_ theory, which holds that from time to time
_ _ individual faunal lineages enter a climactic periods of expansion
_ _ (a period of _Virenz_), within which a phase of unstable
_ _ diversification, a second phase of stable, continuous
_ _ development, and a final one of excessive morphological
_ _ development can be distinguished.
_ _ Recently, Karl Beurlen, in particular, has elaborated upon the
_ _ pattern I have just described. He divides the evolutionary cycle
_ _ into an early phase of explosive development of forms, during
_ _ which the newly formed structural design breaks up into its
_ _ various morphological and ecological possibilities; a second
_ _ period of more gradual, unidirectional (orthogenetic) elaboration
_ _ of the basic forms created during the first phase; and a final
_ _ phase characterized by rampant complexity, degeneration, and
_ _ dissolution of the stable morphology of the preceding period
Essay on Problems with Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
historical background to rise and fall of the Synthetic Euphoria; 1936
A. Franklin Shull
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com
====================================.
** Breeders’ and fruit fly experiment observations
fallacy of false extrapolation
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0309100834320.2240460-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
better conception of faulty extrapolation
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0309142357280.7954-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
Burbank in
1983 Jeremy Rifkin, 1939 Luther Burbank, 2002 Judith Hooper, Darwin
Autobiography: I feel “compelled to look to a First Cause having an
intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man,” 1921 George
Bernard Shaw
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404070956.1db2b888%40posting.google.com
Eiseley in
1958 Eiseley on “careful domestic breeding”; 1863 Darwin: “the belief
in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general
considerations”
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405130534.8eee3f1%40posting.google.com
fruit fly URLs
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
Grasse in
Essay on Problems with Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
====================================.
** Theoretical considerations from genetics and known mutations
mutation URLs
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-37elv4F5260vbU1%40individual.net
1992 Orr & Coyne on Fisher
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970329001049.19794A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
1992 _American Naturalist_ paper by Orr & Coyne
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980614220859.6338A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
====================================.
** Alleged “parallel” and “convergent” blindwatchmaking
Eyes are alleged to have blindwatchmaked independently 40-60+ times; the
40-60+ eyes can be categorized into about 10 different ways of going
about seeing/ having vision.
Light-sensitive spots supposedly blindwatchmaked independently 65+ times.
Bioluminescence is said to have blindwatchmaked numerous times.
What is the advocate of materialism’s explanation of this alleged
“parallel” and “convergent” blindwatchmaking?
In stark contrast, a high level of intelligence has appeared/arisen only
once, as far as we know.
What is your explanation of this state of affairs?
Refs and for Further Reading
accounting for parallel and convergent supposed-blindwatchmaking
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990712220140.883597C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Essay on Problems with Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
ReMine, Walter James. 1993. _The Biotic Message: Evolution
_ _ Versus Message Theory_ (Saint Paul, MN: Saint Paul
_ _ Science), 538pp. Some extracts:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-37f9lqF5ed80kU1%40individual.net
====================================.
** Specialness of earth and the universe as a hospitable
_ _ place for human life
Theist philosopher William Lane Craig mentioned an excellent analogy on
a good interpretation of the numerous different things that had to be
for humans to exist. Imagine that a prisoner faces execution. A 100
person firing squad composed of sharpshooters bearing different types of
guns fires, and the prisoner discovers he is still alive. Now he could
imagine that his living was the result of luck, e.g., all 100 happened
to be terrible shots for that particular discharge, or all the assorted
bullets happened to be improperly manufactured duds, etc.
A more reasonable interpretation he could make would be that someone
purposed that he should live– someone had blanks inserted into the guns
or directed that he not be aimed at. Likewise for us: we could say
that it was all an accident, and that we just happened to be the
beneficiaries of chance events, but it would make more sense to conclude
that some entity/entities or Someone purposed that we should live.
argument for physics’ creator having person-hood
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.91.960816022002.6496G-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
RtB’s “Evidence For Design”
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#design_in_the_universe
chapter in Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. 2004. _I Don’t Have
_ _ Enough Faith to Be an Atheist_ (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway
_ _ Books), 447pp.
====================================.
** Shroud of Turin body image
faulty carbon dating of:
1) must look at preponderance of evidence
2) C-14 tests are undependable
3) archeologists and chemists were needed during the 1988 testing,
_ _ faulty methodology in sample collection
4) bioplastic layer
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981224131117.5044D-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
for what reasons would an artist go to all the _trouble_ of making the
Shroud?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.21L.01.0012262313360.12146-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu
One problem with John Heller’s insistence that science can never
demonstrate the Shroud to be Jesus’ shroud is that by concluding
1) the body image, whether man-made or not, is that of Jesus– as most
_ _ everybody agrees is the case,
2) the image is _not_ the product of an artist, and
3) the image is _not_ a naturally-formed image (it’s much too good to be
_ _ naturally-formed),
that only leaves the possibility of
4) the image is that of the actual Jesus and was formed by supernatural
_ _ means.
Writing within the pages of _The Skeptical Inquirer_, geologist Steven
D. Schafersman noted the existence of this problem:
_ _ The point is that there are really only two possibilities for the
_ _ origin of the shroud: either it was made by an artist or it is a
_ _ miraculous reproduction of the image of Jesus Christ. To
_ _ contemplate a third possibility for _this_ shroud (e.g., a natural
_ _ image transfer of a crucified man who was not Jesus of Nazareth) is
_ _ absurd. Therefore, by concluding that the shroud is not the work
_ _ of an artist, the STURP [Shroud of Turin Research Project]
_ _ members are concluding that it is authentic
_ _ (i.e., Jesus and supernatural). At the same time, they constantly
_ _ claim that science can never reach this conclusion.
Heller can claim [+JH]”all the science in the world is never, ever going
to prove the Shroud is authentic” as much as he likes, but the
obvious implication of the STURP team’s conclusions is option 4), the
image is that of the actual Jesus and was formed by supernatural means.
Whether such a demonstration-by-elimination-of-alternatives actually is
“science” I leave to philosophers of science, but before doing so, note
that by Heller’s own admission, science utilizes the technique of ruling
things out:
_ _ That was the end of that. Another exercise in futility.
_ _ Scientific research is filled with such dead ends, and it is in
_ _ this way that the scientific enterprise proceeds. We investigate
_ _ possibilities and rule them in or out. At the end, what is left
_ _ is probably the truth.[jh, 124]
“In fact, the perfection of the image rules out, to my mind, the
possibility of its being formed by _any conceivable_ natural process,
assuming, of course, that the shroud is authentic.” Schafersman
continues, “It is this fact that has so greatly troubled
STURP. They at first proposed various radiation hypotheses to explain
the image, but these have now been retracted upon the realization that
they were proposing supernormal or supernatural phenomena.”
[Schafersman, _The Skeptical Enquirer_ (Spring 1982), 41.]
Case, Thomas W. _The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco: A
_ _ Scientific Detective Story_ (Cincinnati: White Horse Press, 1996),
_ _ 103pp.
Heller, John H. _Report on the Shroud of Turin_ (Boston: Houghton
_ _ Mifflin Company, 1983), 225pp.
Schafersman, Steven D. “Science, the Public, and the Shroud of Turin”
_ _ _The Skeptical Inquirer_ (spring 1982), 37-56, 43.
what the Shroud body image is
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981228235350.26179D-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
October 28th, 2007 at 7:54 am
[Philip on October 27, 2007]”Evolutionist claims…. they are still hanging on to vestigial organs, and junk DNA as supporting evidence dispite their falsification.”
Fatally Flawed: Vestigial Organs, Biogeography, Homology,
and Embryology as Evidence for the Theory of Evolution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0305250118100.2340516-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
Mayr and G. Nelson & N. Platnick on biogeography
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990719222253.1868077A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
_Basilosaurus_’s purported vestigial leg
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709233733.17288H-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Bogus ‘Vestigial Leg’ Claims
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9910142302001.6397-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Is Junk DNA Evidence for Biological Evolution?
http://www.reasons.org/tnrtb/2007/05/03/is-junk-dna-evidence-for-biological-evolution/
October 28th, 2007 at 8:11 am
[John M Lundy on October 27, 2007]”Navitron I have to respectfully disagree that refuting a persons discovers is a bad thing. …. Making sure a person’s work is completely correct is an essential part of science.”
Yockey, Hubert P. 1992. _Information Theory and
Molecular Biology_ (GB: Cambridge University Press), 385
or more pages. From the Epilogue on 336:
Furthermore, as I showed in Chapters 9 and 10, the
paradigm does not perform the task its advocates claim.
Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth
consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup
paradigm is self-deception based on the ideology of its
champions.
The history of the ‘life on Mars’ effort which played a
primary role in the Mariner and Viking space craft
missions shows an _intemperate wish to believe_ by
leading scientists who saw in their data what they
wished to see (Horowitz, 1986, 1990). The usual
creative skepticism of scientists did not play a role until
the enormous weight of evidence showed that belief that
there is or was life on Mars is based on faith (’Now faith
is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things unseen’; Hebrews 11:1). This has not yet
manifested itself with regard to the belief in chemical
evolution and the primeval soup paradigm.
The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it
has achieved the status of acceptance (and is
incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures,
is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is
available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make
progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so
to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if
this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms
survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in
religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a
set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in
a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm
is available is an example of the logical _fallacy of the
false alternative_. In science it is a virtue to
acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the
case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has
discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should
be different in the research on the origin of life. The
best advice that one could given to the alchemist would
have been to study nuclear physics and astrophysics,
although that would not have been helpful at the time.
We do not see the origin of life clearly, but through a
glass darkly. Perhaps the best advice to those who are
interested in the origin of life would be to study biology.
After dispensing with failed paradigms in Chapters 8, 9
and 10, I have shown that the problem to be solved in
the origin of life and in evolution is the means by which
complexity (as defined in this book) was generated.
Half the solution to the problem is to define the question
clearly.
some 1915-1999 doses of reality
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33arf3F3vjdggU1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
October 28th, 2007 at 8:14 am
[Caucasian Jesus on October 27, 2007]”The Church of Jesus… Christ does not approve of your message.”
atheism-adherent Mussolini science experiment disproved existence of God of theism
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1177901807.528939.160150%40n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
October 28th, 2007 at 8:23 am
[Mar on October 27, 2007]”I’d like to see actual data, such as close to 100% fossil finds that show one thing evolving from and into another. Photographs - not drawings.”
Essay on Problems with Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
1989 Christopher Wills on insignificance of known cases of gradual ‘evolution’ in fossil record
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8bhf4m%24eta%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
du Nouy, Hoyle & Wickramasinghe, Hoyle
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.21L.01.0008280023040.30799-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
“No one can conclude from fossil fragments one thing evolving to another.”
Correct.
“that’s where punctuated equilibrium comes in … because the fossils are not found.”
_Paleobiology_ 3: 134 (1977), Gould & Eldredge:
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence
a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing (’all
these years of work and I haven’t found any evolution’).
E&G’s 1972 article
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970329001407.19794B-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709233254.17288E-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
1972 and 1977 Gould and Eldredge on punk-eek and the fossil record
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39lhabF61ut8sU1%40individual.net
October 28th, 2007 at 8:28 am
NASA = NAZISATAN
So we get yet another article trying to tell us a so-called “Big bang” ever happened:
“Cold spot could be relic of Big Bang
CHICAGO (Reuters) - A cold spot in the oldest radiation in the universe could be the first sign of a cosmic glitch that might have originated shortly after the Big Bang, British and Spanish scientists said on Thursday.
They think this spot — detected on satellite maps of microwave radiation — might be a cosmic defect or texture, a holdover from the universe’s infancy. But they said their theory would need confirmation.
Such defects or textures, they theorize, reflect a flaw in the pattern of the universe as it formed — think of a snag in pantyhose or a flaw in a diamond.
“If the cold spot is indeed proven to be a texture, it will completely change our view of how the universe evolved following the Big Bang,” said Mike Hobson, of the Astrophysics Group at the University of Cambridge’s Cavendish Laboratory, whose study appears in the journal Science.””
Nevermind that “brits and spanish” get to use good US-funded tax-money; but they use it to try and prove yet again the mythical “evolution”? What if it was the Devil that tricked their instruments instead?
October 28th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Here is Science dirty little secretes revealed…
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21/comments:
“Thus, while we may still appreciate the role of Darwin in helping scientists wining a upper hand in fighting against the creationists for filling our intellectual void of understanding life’s origin and evolution, we must realize that Darwin’s fetal mistakes have also misled science into a dead end of fruitless search for the non-existent last common ancestor (LCA) and some useless constructions of some untruthful universal tree of life (TOL) (4-5)”.
Shi V. Liu
Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine
Apex, NC 27502, USA
Philip States:
Dimencio, How does Evolution fill an intellectual void when it consists of …
Darwins fatal mistakes?
Misleading science into dead ends?
props up Non-existant Common ancestors?
disseminates Useless constructions of untruthful tree of life?
Your esteemed scientist prefer to preserve Darwinism Dogma over following the evidence! Darwin’s theory serves as sciences smoke screen until they come up with real answers…
At the very least Dimencio, your intellectual inquiry should view Darwinism with great suspect…
October 28th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
David, keep the info coming! I’m learning more from this forum concerning the pros and cons of macroevolution vs ID then I did during my Undergraduate studies and I am loving it!
October 28th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
What about that which christians should really be concerned about:
-how did god make this “perfect” world yet allow the devil to lurk in it?
-why would an all powerful god have to sacrifice himself/son for man’s sin?
-would you kill your son/daughter?
-why would you worship an entity that did?
October 28th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Maybe my understanding of this is wrong. But I’m pretty sure that scientists compete against one another, merely by sending their results to get published in magazines, magazines that get sent out to scientists all around the world in the same field. As said way above, it is the free marketplace of ideas.
In order for scientists to even make a name for themselves, they have to eventually publish their results. If that scientist lies or is incompetent, then other scientists who follow their work will see that… and the whole scientific community follows appropriately. The very same researchers who teach at our universities. Therefore, the scientific literature will most likely be kept honest. Therefore, evolution is most likely true.
Again, if Ben is reading: do you ever respond, yourself, to your own critics? And if you’re such an expert at economics, and are aware of competition in the market place, why can’t you see competition in the scientific community as well?
October 28th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
David-
Any theory (evolution) that takes this much cyber-wind to defend can’t possibly be correct.
October 28th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
The ultimate and final resource and answer on ID
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
October 28th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Wow. So few of the supporters have any idea at all what it they’re criticizing. This includes what the scientific method is or does, what evolutionary theory covers and how itt is different from the fields of abiogenesis or cosmology. But hey, you know.. whatever floats your ignorant, boxed-in, discriminatory worldview boat.
October 28th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
“So we get yet another article trying to tell us a so-called “Big bang” ever happened”
Bashing Big Bang theory
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402061734.3914cb3b%40posting.google.com
1982 Richard Morris, 1992 Antony Flew
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990311073639.27782B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1966 Hannes Alfven; 1990 H.C. Arp, G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle, J.V.
Narliker, and N.C. Wickramasinghe; on Jean-Claude P.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980824234855.3753B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
on Eric Lerner
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970122231808.6380G-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
“CHICAGO (Reuters)”
doctoring of photos by Reuters and USA Today
http://tinyurl.com/kctmo
October 28th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
[Navitron on October 27, 2007]”Everything is subject to criticism, but suddenly this certain area called ‘religion’ is suddenly not!?”
I say, criticize away. And I’ll continue to criticize secular religions, e.g. Darwinianity.
Coulter takes on Darwinianity
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1158329398.661032.206750%40i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
“going to burn for all eternity in hell”
the Koran on hell; link to
“Christianity” is not monolithic when it comes to the nature of hell.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3720ncF56q00hU1%40individual.net
“North Korea, forever praise be to Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il”
become like famous mass-killer atheists, and have others worship you
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1152629227.581932.229990%40s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
“What do … (Intelligent Design, Creationism) have to add to science?”
A metaphysical research program.
ID as a metaphysical research program
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
October 29th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
I agree with the idea that atheism should not be pushed in the science classroom. I disagree with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and their ilk who claim that evolution means there is no God. What evolution does, is redifines God for many people. For people like me, the concept of God is hugely expanded in the light of evolution.
October 29th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
I am a Christian and an evolutionary biologist who has observed evolution in action. I agree with the idea that atheism should not be pushed in the science classroom. I disagree with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and their ilk who claim that evolution means there is no God. What they really mean is that evolution proves that the notion of a guy in a long, white beard hurling thunnderbolts is no longer a valid image of God. The question of God’s existence is really a question of definition. The ideas of evolution redefine the concept of God. For many people, like me, the concept of God is hugely expanded in the light of evolution. My personal relationship to the God who uses evolution for creation is hugely expanded.
In the light of evolution, my faith is on more solid footing. My relationships are better, I experience more joy, and my moments of grace are more frequent.
I used to sympathize with the ideas of Intelligent Design, until I learned that the agenda of the ID movement was to put religion in the science classroom, not to promote science. The deceit of the ID movement leaders turns me off way more than the atheists who are truth-seeking and honest. Leaders in the ID movement should focus their energy on embracing the truth of evolution and how it reveals God’s Creation and how we can be better stewards of it. If ID leaders focus on integrity instead of deceit, then people will in time come to see that evolution is the method of God, and that the arc of the universe bends toward justice, as Martin Luther King suggested.
October 29th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
It always amazes me how politically conservative, folks who demand that all marketplaces be free and that authority be respected, start acting like priggish Democrats when their ideas lose in
just such a marketplace, and when their cause is not taken up by people who know more about a subject than they do.
Anti-evos, you simply have to face facts. Evolution won, creationism lost. You can’t propagandize it away, you can’t legislate it away, and you can’t make it go away by lying about science.
Anti-evolution arguments are anti-science arguments. And anti-science is just plain anti-American. Y’all are just a bunch of Xtian Taliban—intellectual terrorists and vandals.
October 29th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
In my humble opinion; why the professors of evolutionism are so aggressive against “ID-people”, is because they’re threatening their beliefs - cause it’s all about beliefs. No one knows how this world started; we can only have our beliefs. It’s either that, or they don’t want to lose their income. If it had been about the disagreement only, the wouldn’t have reacted that strong.
Take care!
PS. Pardon my english, I’m swedish.
And remember, God loves atheists also.
October 29th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Man, this place is a laugh riot! Conflation of evolution, cosmology, and information theory! Citing Coulter as an expert on anything! Whew!
“Secular religions”? You’re joking about that too, right?
October 29th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
“keep the info coming!”
That occurring depends in large part on what push-back I get. As a suggestion, pose as a fervent adherent of Darwinianity, and see what I present in response. The more arguments and verbiage the better.
Synthetic Euphoria URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35qfcuF4rpudvU1%40individual.net
October 29th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
“our intellectual void of understanding life’s origin”
atheism of the gaps
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1163208112.842963.215980%40f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
big gap in a purely naturalistic account of the world
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1163337742.608958.162710%40f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
“fruitless search for the non-existent last common ancestor (LCA)”
do ORFans fit into a nested hierarchy?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1165334818.498006.131640%40f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
“useless constructions of some untruthful universal tree of life”
Macbeth on phylogeny trees
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990126225603.790598A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1977 G&E on diagrams and the uninitiated
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.91.960722001816.872M%40umbc8.umbc.edu
1980 Gould on the tips and nodes of trees
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970901005523.14415B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
October 29th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
“Darwin’s theory serves as sciences smoke screen until they come up with real answers”
Lewontin, Richard. 9 January 1997. “Billions and Billions of Demons”
_NY Times Book Reviews_. At
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/Lewontin1.htm
A paragraph:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are
against common sense is the key to an understanding of
the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
We take the side of science _in spite_ of the patent
absurdity of some of its constructs, _in spite_ of its
failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of
health and life, _in spite_ of the tolerance of the
scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories,
because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions
of science somehow compel us to accept a material
explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the
contrary, that we are forced by our _a priori_ adherence
to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation
and a set of concepts that produce material explanations,
no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that
materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine
Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck
used to say that anyone who could believe in God could
believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is
to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature
may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
October 29th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
[stunned on October 28, 2007]”few of the supporters have any idea at all what it they’re criticizing”
“Supporters” of what exactly?
“what evolutionary theory covers”
ReMine, and Birch & Ehrlich on the unfalsifiability of the ToE
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990620062330.18490880A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
“how itt is different from the fields of abiogenesis”
concept of “blindwatchmaking”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
1983 Russell F. Doolittle on origin of life on earth: developed in
stages/evolved; 1959 Julian Huxley: “all aspects of reality are
subject to evolution”
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970802094315.27893C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
“cosmology”
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/443d6bc0b02dd25e?dmode=source
The Discovery That the Universe Is Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
October 29th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
“macroevolution”
1933 and 1940 Goldschmidt on macro- vs. microevolution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311639.3dc8e050%40posting.google.com
October 29th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
“look how people completely don’t care about our kids science education. Even going so far as lying”
1983 Bruce Alberts; Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo depictions; 1956 Goldschmidt
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-38m3vrF5o7bk2U1%40individual.net
Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312080520.163bc617%40posting.google.com
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith, 1986 Andrew Scott, 1999 Freeman Dyson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33bltcF3rgbovU1%40individual.net
October 29th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
“Science should stick to the betterment of Man”
Hitler’s human breeding plan using [1871 Darwin]”careful selection” + mutations:
Hitler: “the process of selection can be accelerated by political
means”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1165353459.919069.200160%40j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Darwin on [1871 Darwin]”careful selection” in connection with the breeding of humans;
1924/5 Hitler & 1871 Darwin on heterogeneous & homogeneous peoples
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133977762.788382.143030%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
eugenics in atheocratic North Korea
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143149976.129405.152870%40i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
1935/9 Carrel: “criminality and insanity can be prevented… by eugenics”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1145629331.433399.159720%40t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Hitler and 1916 English/1923 German Madison Grant
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1145413908.007101.312670%40u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com
Hitler’s actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Hitler’s debt to American eugenicists
http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/offSiteArchive/HitlerDebtToAmerica.html
some findings re: Hitler, pro-death Darwinists http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1149886564.932994.211090%40f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
October 29th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
“particles-to-people evo”
Stebbins, G. Ledyard. 1982. _Darwin to DNA, Molecules to
Humanity_ (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company),
491pp., 4:
The evolutionist’s [i.e. blindwatchmakingist’s] answer is
that all these millions of different kinds of organisms
evolved [i.e. blindwatchmaked] from common ancestors
during the thousands of millions of years since the first
appearance of life. Their evolution [i.e.
blindwatchmaking] was opportunistic and devoid of
purpose.
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
concept of “blindwatchmaking”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
October 29th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
“I’m sorry when did Personal Incredulity and Anecdotal evidence count as science”
Darwin to Gray on the fan-tail
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404170630.5cb94298%40posting.google.com
1863 Darwin: “the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405130534.8eee3f1%40posting.google.com
the panda’s “thumb” argument
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405181220.3a30b3b5%40posting.google.com
Gould and false dichotomy
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403101915.25dc7a6a%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401291823.78264831%40posting.google.com
Darwin: “If the death of neither man nor gnat are designed, I see no reason to believe that their _first_ birth or production should be necessarily designed.”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404161917.475b5fc0%40posting.google.com
October 30th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Ben,
I was expelled from SCIENTIFIC AMRICAN magazine. The details are at:
http://www.forrestmims.org/scientificamerican.html
Briefly, in 1989, the editor of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN magazine called and asked if I would like to write “The Amateur Scientist,” a well known column about do-it-yourself science projects.
During a meeting in his New York office, the editor was excited about the homemade scientific and electronic devices I showed him. He repeatedly said, “We should have hired you years ago!” He called in the editorial staff and asked me to show them the instruments and devices that I had brought.
Later, the editor frowned when I told him I had once written an article for a Christian magazine about how to organize long-distance bicycle trips for church kids. He then asked if I believed in Darwinian evolution. I said no. Two senior editors supported me for the column, but two junior editors quizzed me about my beliefs concerning “right to life” and whether or not I read the Bible.
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN eventually published three of my columns. Unfortunately, the editor refused to publish more, because he was concerned that my personal beliefs would cause the magazine to experience what he described as “a public relations nightmare.”
His dream came true after I told a newspaper reporter friend what happened. After the reporter’s story was prominently featured in a Houston newspaper, reporters called from THE WASHINGTON POST and THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. A reporter for THE NEW YORK TIMES arrived at my office for an interview. After articles appeared in these newspapers, dozens of magazines and newspapers called. So did many radio and TV stations. For around six weeks it was virtually impossible to work due to the endless media interviews.
The good news is that being expelled from SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN led to a career doing science. The details are at www.forrestmims.org.
So hang in there, Ben! I predict you’ll go on to do great things–even after being expelled.
Forrest M. Mims III
www.sunandsky.org
October 30th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
wow. what a bunch of garbage.
October 30th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
For all non-christians who are struggling with belief, here are some answers for you:
Go to creationministries.org and on the home page, scroll down a few inches and you will see a link titled: “online video and audio”. Click on that link and you will see several educational video’s where Christian creationist Russ Miller SERIOUSLY debunks evolution, and discusses the overwelming evidence for biblical creation and the globel flood. Watch the following video’s:
- 50 facts vs evolution
- 50 facts vs biblical accounts
- Noah’s ark and the dinosaurs
This site also has several other video’s you should watch as well. If those 3 video’s I mentioned don’t convince you that biblical creation is the absolute truth, and evolution is the biggest lie in human history, then I don’t know what will. But of coarse many atheists still won’t believe, because they just don’t want to be held accountable to God, so they hide behide anti-supernaturalism. They just don’t want to acknowledge the supernatural, because they don’t want God to exsist.
So to those who have common sense, and are willing to believe in the bible, but just need some good evidence, go to the website I mentioned and watch Russ Miller’s video’s.
God bless, and I hope you will come to believe in your creator.
go here: creationministries.org
October 30th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
quote “Man, this place is a laugh riot! Conflation of evolution, cosmology, and information theory!” unquote
Welcome aboard TC’s sense of humor. Maybe TC will learn something while here.
quote “Citing Coulter as an expert on anything! Whew!” unquote
And what insightful intelligent knowledge do you have to offer? Remember that Darwinian evolution equals fantasy/fairytale which encircles a closed mind.
quote “Secular religions”? You’re joking about that too, right?” unquote
Ah, no joke TC, sorry. One has got to have a ton of faith to believe in Darwinian than ID. Once Darwinians let their intelligence kick in, they may open their mind … and try to unlearn the hoax taught in school. God gave us common sense, just many refuse to use it.
October 30th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
“‘Secular religions’? You’re joking about that too, right?”
No.
Ruse, Michael. 13 February 1993. Speech at 1993 Annual Meeting of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, at the symposium
“The New Antievolutionism”
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/orpages/or151/mr93tran.htm
Certainly, historically, that if you look at, say,
evolutionary theory, and of course this was brought
out I think rather nicely by the talk just before me,
it’s certainly been the case that evolution has
functioned, if not as a religion as such, certainly with
elements akin to a secular religion. Those of us
who teach philosophy of religion always say there’s
no way of defining religion by a neat, necessary and
sufficient condition. The best that you can do is list
a number of characteristics, some of which all
religions have, and none of which any religion,
whatever or however you sort of put it. And
certainly, there’s no doubt about it, that in the past,
and I think also in the present, for many
evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something
with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a
secular religion.
I think, for instance, of the most famous family in the
history of evolution, namely, the Huxleys. I think of
Thomas Henry Huxley, the grandfather, and of
Julian Huxley, the grandson. Certainly, if you read
Thomas Henry Huxley, when he’s in full flight,
there’s no question but that for Huxley at some very
important level, evolution and science generally, but
certainly evolution in particular, is functioning a bit
as a kind of secular religion. Interestingly, Huxley–
and I’ve gone through his own lectures, I’ve gone
through two complete sets of lecture notes that
Huxley gave to his students– Huxley never talked
about evolution when he was actually teaching. He
kept evolution for affairs like this, and when he was
talking at a much more popular sort of level.
Certainly, though, as I say, for Thomas Henry
Huxley, I don’t think there’s any question but that
evolution functioned, at a level, as a kind of secular
religion.
And there’s no question whatsoever that for Julian
Huxley, when you read _Evolution, the Modern
Synthesis_, that Julian Huxley saw evolution as a
kind of progressive thing upwards. I think Julian
Huxley was certainly an atheist, but he was at the
same time a kind of neo-vitalist, and he bound this
up with his science. If you look both at his printed
stuff, and if you go down to Rice University which
has got all his private papers, again and again in the
letters, it comes through very strongly that for Julian
Huxley evolution was functioning as a kind of
secular religion.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Huxley’s sermons have exegesis of god’s holy scriptures
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1157035607.079463.274980%40m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
secular religiosity
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1157425453.315717.30590%40m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
“Huxley never talked about evolution when he was actually teaching”
‘evolution’ needed to make sense of biology?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7nibqu%24o0l%241%40pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu
legerdemain in the use of the word ‘evolution’
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Can anybody think of data that would lead a devout materialist to cease
to [1923 J. Huxley]”reject any explanation which proceeds… by
miracles”?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990818214806.410371A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
October 30th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
“Citing Coulter as an expert on anything!”
Do you disagree with anything below?
someone, who often quotes others, perhaps at
http://www.bigpicweblog.com/exp/index.php/weblog/comments/a_review_of_the_darwin_chapters_from_ann_coulters_new_book
> June 16, 2006
>
> A Review of the Darwin Chapters from Ann Coulter’s New Book
>
> As you may have heard, Ann Coulter’s new book, Godless, rejects
> Darwinism. When I first found out about this from an early review of
> the book, I fully expected this to prove an embarrassment to Ann. Even
> as I read the book, as I began those chapters (chapters 8 - 10), I
> expected them to be specious.
>
> But in the storm of criticism of the book so far, there has not yet
> been one word from the scientific community, objecting to Ann’s views
> (at least that I have seen). How is this possible?
>
> The astonishing answer is that Coulter has founded all of her views on
> the published work of prominent scientific experts, and presented them
> in a very compelling and persuasive manner. In short, it appears
> possible that she may be right.
>
> She begins by discussing the Darwinian assumption that the intricate
> structures of an organism evolved gradually, via one random mutation at
> a time:
>
> [Lehigh University biochemist Michael] Behe produced various
> “irreducibly complex” mechanisms, of which there are thousand –
> complex cellular structures, blood-clotting mechanisms, and the eye,
> among others.
Julie Thomas on biological design
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-329osfF3jopn9U1%40individual.net
> A bacterial motor, called a flagellum, depends on the
> coordinated interaction of 30-40 complex protein parts. The absence of
> almost any one of the parts would render the flagellum useless. An
> animal cell’s whiplike oar, called a cilium, is composed of about 200
> protein parts. Behe compared these cell parts to a simple mousetrap,
> with far fewer necessary components than a cilium or flagellum. Though
> there are only a few parts to a mousetrap, all of them have to be
> working together at one time for the contraption to serve any function
> whatsoever. If one of the parts i s missing, Behe says, you don’t get a
> mousetrap that catches only half as many mice: you don’t get a
> mousetrap at all. Behe then demonstrated that it is a mathematical
> impossibility for all 30 pats of the flagellum (or 200 parts of the
> cilium) to have been brought together by the “numerous, successive,
> slight modifications” of natural selection. Life at the molecular
> level, he concluded, “is a loud, clear piercing cry of design.”
Biology has the appearance of having been designed by intelligence.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135748125.229401.252690%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> Coulter goes through the responses from the scientific community to
> Behe’s work, and notes that while many said that “more research is
> needed,” no one even attempted to disprove it.
>
> The evolutionist’s answer is Assume that each one of the hundreds of
> mutations necessary to create the final product is itself “fit” in ways
> we don’t understand but must accept on faith because it’s Holy
> Scripture.
Darwin’s bible; Hsu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a18k3F66sgjpU1%40individual.net
> …Evolutionists believe — purely as a matter of faith — that
> individual, unrelated mutations facilitated the production of all 200
> necessary parts, completely by chance, and thus created the flagellum.
> And then they tell us they want to keep “faith” out of the classroom.
1874 Huxley: “unbelieving dogs who resist the Prophet of Evolution”
i.e. Haeckel
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1141181413.323360.165370%40p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
> Okay.
>
> Coulter then details something I did not know about — and I suspect
> most of those reading this did not either — namely that there is no
> evidence in the fossil record to support the theory of the slow
> transformation of species into other species.
1980 Eldredge: “time to reexamine” theory of NS
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311302356490.22520-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
> Such evidence would be
> expected based on Darwin’s classic work, “The Origin of Species.”
Essay on Problems with Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
> It was a nice yarn Darwin had spun, but there was absolutely nothing in
> the fossil record to support it. Far from showing gradual change with
> one species slowly giving way to another, as Darwin hypothesized, the
> fossil record showed vast numbers of new species suddenly appearing out
> of nowhere, remaining largely unchanged for millions of years, and then
> disappearing (almost like there was a big flood or something.)
Schindewolf
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10001222211190.17988-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Go Away, Flood Geology
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981223232528.26657B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
> Coulter quotes David Raup, a geologist at Chicago’s Field Museum of
> Natural History, who wrote in 1979:
>
> [W]e are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of he
> fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a
> million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The
> record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we
> have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in
> Darwin’s time.
Ager
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990509232910.38199A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
the fraud known as the fossil horse series
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980816003836.28616B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
> By this I mean that some of the classic cases of
> darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the
> horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a
> result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice
> simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears
> to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.
>
> Coulter comments:
>
> Darwin’s disciples simply assert that evolution led from this species
> to that by the process of random mutation — with cruel nature striking
> down th genetic losers — and to hell with the fossil record’s showing
> nothing of the sort. At some point, it’s not even pseudo-science
> anymore, it’s just a crazy religious cult.
Huxley’s sermons have exegesis of god’s holy scriptures
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1157035607.079463.274980%40m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
control - f/ “find” for: sect
Grene on Schindewolf; Margulis; Calder; Gould on hogwash in
evolutionary theory
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970721233453.16211D-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
> Coulter provides a massive amount of facts, examples, and evidence
> along these lines.
>
> I’ve got a lifelong interest in the advances of science, and a couple
> of Master’s Degrees (although neither is in science), and I’d never
> heard about this in my life. Coulter gives many examples of why this
> might be. Schools which attempt to discuss these facts in class are
> sued by the ACLU; scholars who attempt to publish on these items have
> been fired.
Fire the IDiots
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403121312.35d2e0c%40posting.google.com
> At this point, I can only consider this mind-blowing. It’s too
> far-reaching for me even to feel comfortable stating at this instant
> that I am convinced Coulter is right (although I’m mighty close being
> convinced.) I have to hear the response from the scientific community.
>
> Which makes the silence to date from that community, deafening.
>
> Can it possibly be, that we are in the exact same state as our
> ancestors, who condemned Galileo for saying the Earth traveled around
> the sun? Can we be as ignorant as they were, punishing anyone who
> disagrees with an official view of the world which is without basis in
> fact?
_Paleobiology_ 3: 134 (1977), Gould & Eldredge:
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence
a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing (’all
these years of work and I haven’t found any evolution’).
> We know that we as humans can find “the unknown” to be frightening; can
> it possibly be that we are still so far from understanding enough about
> how we can have come into existence on this earth, that we must use
> lawsuits and firings to prevent people from discussing that lack of
> understanding, out of an inability to face that (irrational) fear?
What matters is what elite judges having a secular religion say.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3aenpiF69fl4rU1%40individual.net
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
October 30th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
“Conflation of evolution, cosmology, and information theory”
Meaning of “evolution”?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
“information theory”
on “order” and varieties of “complexity”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407211714.53153989%40posting.google.com
2001 Gerald Schroeder, 1999 Paul Davies, 1992 Hubert Yockey, & 1968 Michael Polanyi: [Davies]”life cannot be ‘written into’ the laws of physics” presently known
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33b2blF3tdum0U1%40individual.net
October 30th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
“For people like me, the concept of God is hugely expanded in the light of evolution.”
What is your “concept of God”?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
a claim: Hitler was a Christian
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1131389424.486586.51840%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
atheist Hitler and an Ethical Culture i.e. atheist individual on ‘God’
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1136317045.783426.125490%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Stephen, Leslie. “Pantheism and Agnosticism” in
Darrow, Clarence and Wallace Rice. 1929. _Infidels and Heretics: An
Agnostic’s Anthology_ (Boston, MA: The Stratford Company, Publishers),
293pp., 34. On 34:
We no longer doubt, it is true, whether there be a
God, for our God means all reality…. We keep the
old word [i.e. ‘God’]; we have altered the whole of its
contents.
1860 atheism-adherent Huxley:
“the Almighty…him” = “Nature….she”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1141353908.308726.161380%40z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Satan’s expulsion from heaven; worship of one’s self
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1155401734.714656.220870%40m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
become like famous mass-killer atheists, and have others worship you
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1152629227.581932.229990%40s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
October 30th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
[Cathy on October 29, 2007 at 4:37 pm]”I am a Christian and an evolutionary biologist who has observed evolution in action.”
How can someone become “a Christian”?
Meaning of “evolution”?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
did Hitler have Jesus Christ as the “Lord” of Hitler’s life?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1178369798.677557.114240%40y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
Meaning of “evolution”?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
“evolution is the method of God”
concept of “blindwatchmaking”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
October 30th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
[Practical Thinker on October 29, 2007 at 6:16 pm]”Anti-evos, you simply have to face facts. Evolution won, creationism lost.”
“Evolution won” when?
Meaning of “evolution”?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
legerdemain in the use of the word ‘evolution’
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1155797640.745661.216050%40b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
1916 Caullery: “data of Mendelism embarrass us”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403191919.590c22e3%40posting.google.com
Dawkins, Catley on the coming Kuhnian revolution, Collingridge & Earthy
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981113234219.18273B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Synthetic Euphoria URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35qfcuF4rpudvU1%40individual.net
October 30th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
[Jörgen Lundgren on October 29th, 2007]”In my humble opinion; why the professors of evolutionism are so aggressive against ‘ID-people’, is because they’re threatening their beliefs”
Beliefs about what?
Your English is quite good.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
the question of accountability/ autonomy favors conversion to atheism
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1137184204.545825.116810%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
atheism-adherent Sartre: “everything is permissible if God does not exist”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1148953550.334506.168420%40j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Motivations for Continuing to Cling to Philosophy of Materialism, 1999 Paul Vitz on personal convenience; 2002 Benjamin Wiker
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35qe6lF4orjsoU1%40individual.net
October 30th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
[Forrest M. Mims III on October 30, 2007 at 2:41 pm]”two junior editors quizzed me about my beliefs concerning ‘right to life’ and whether or not I read the Bible”
Tutu: “If any book should be banned by those who rule unjustly and as tyrants, then it is the Bible.”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1179340230.530341.317370%40o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
thread for
erroneous claims in the Babble
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1156770348.117388.43940%40i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Bible, & Mesha king of Moab agree: he fought against Israel;
Mesha Stele aka The Moabite Stone
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1187359299.324414.198900%4050g2000hsm.googlegroups.com
Hitler & abortion
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1141921380.312364.144060%40i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
pro-deathers motivated by guilt
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/8a7a21f0904ab0d5
cranial depression abortion
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1176471444.004586.146070%40n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
“This is Abortion” video
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-4-video.html
October 30th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
“This is Abortion” video
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-4-video.html
I appreciate you sharing this.
Abortion, that’s just not right. The visual here, it’s horrific - human beings are dying daily … not just a fetus, an actual human being. That’s murder in God’s eyes. And abortion is justified? In who’s world? Not God’s I’ll tell you that right now.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:23 am
It’s great to see Hollywood challenging the school systems. It seems parents have lost control on curriculum. Ben Stein for President!
October 31st, 2007 at 11:40 am
Mr. Stein-
You are awesome! I am a pre-med student and everyday in class, especially Biology, we are subjected to videos that actually try to tell us we came from Sponges in the ocean(i’m not kidding) or from a proto-cell that just happened to come together out of nothing to produce everything we see in existence today! To be honest with you, most of the students in my class, even the non-religious ones LAUGH when they see these videos because i think most people see the absurdity in it all. It is harder for me to beleive that life was created from nothing 3.5 billion years ago than to beleive that creator did it! Still it is pushed on us to no end and really is not healthy, science is not a way to live your life, it can only TRY to tell us about the physical apects of our world, to deny the spiritual reality of being HUMAN is to deny yourself from being a complete and WHOLE person, period! It’s funny how even atheists will say, “well I still have my own spirituality, as Professor Dawkins said in an interview, “I would say I am a spiritual athiest”, and if you don’t beleive that the KING of all the atheists would say that, please go look at his interview with Allister Mcgrath for yourself! So, I ask the atheist, where do you get your spiritual nature from??? Lets face it, everyone has that capacity to be spiritual and explore that facit to life, it is actually what makes life so magnificent, full of awe and inspiration!!! All theist do is go one step further and link that spiritual aspect to a Higher Power or God, is that such a bad thing? I think not! I think the real issue here is that students should NOT be made to feel bad about what they beleive in the face of science, but that is exactly what is happening from the materilaist scientist! WHat the overly zealous atheist as well as the over zealouos religious fanatics need to do is just CHILL out and be open to the idea that a higher being or power could very well be involved in not only our creation, but our everyday lives as well WITHOUT yelling, kicking and screaming that they are right and you are wrong! I am not religious, but did grow up with Christian ideals and I did always had an open mind and came to beleive in God on my own terms, i think that this is how many people feel, while maybe they do not go to church every sunday, most people realize that there is somethhing out there greater than themselves, and it gives life more meaning, purpose and peace! Hmmm, purpose, meaning & peace… the atheist will argue as if those things whether they say comes from an artificial source or not, are bad things!?? HUH??? So, if one can improve their life by living as if their is indeed a God, why would Atheistic views and outlook appeal to ANYONE????? I can still be just as rational, educated & LOGICAL as any atheist, but you know what, at the end of the day I also have to tools that help me live my life to the fullest, and it sure isn’t meaningless!
Thanks for reading, alright all you secularists, lets bring on the attacks, LOL, which is what i know will ensue this post!
October 31st, 2007 at 12:38 pm
David,
I can see you are a fervent Darwinist. Instead of pointing to articles, why not tell us how exactly life originated by itself? Recall that one of the cornerstones of biology is the cell theory which states that life(cells) come from pre-existing life(cells). Therefore Biblical creationism says that God, who is alive, made the first life. So creationism does not violate this theory, yet abiogenesis does.
Don’t bother asking who made God…He is the First Cause.
You have a cell which built itself…an information molecule which built itself…living things which have an infinite variety to change into just about anything we can imagine and yet have no purpose. So I guess you have no purpose either.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Did Darwin Murder God?
It has been said that Darwin murdered God. Now over 100 years after his death discoveries in science are killing his theory. But don’t try to ask about these in the classroom unless you are ready to rumble. You could be made fun of, told to be quite, have your grade affected or worse.
Macro-evolution, as the result of natural selection, fails to explain life on Earth and is solidly blocked at five separate points:
1) Evolutionary theory is blocked at its beginning, the big bang. Some will claim that the Big Bang is not linked to macro-evolution. However, it is the accepted explanation of how the universe as we know it could have supposedly come into existence without God. It is commonly believed in the scientific community that prior to this supposed event that there was nothing. No time, or space, or matter. Then from this nothingness, for a reason we can’t explain, there was an explosion, and billions of years later, and here we are.
This does not meet the test of scientific method. It is not testable or observable…or is it? What if we were to do an experiment? What if we took absolutely nothing (what supposedly existed before the supposed Big Bang) and put it into a cardboard box. How long would we have to wait for it to explode and become everything – all the time, matter, and energy in a universe? If we wait billions of years, it is possible isn’t it? Not hardly. Wait for eternity. It won’t happen. Either the Big Bang theory isn’t testable and observable as true science must be, or it is testable and the test proves it wrong. The Big Bang cannot explain how Earth came to exist because something cannot come from nothing, unless there is a God and He brought something out of nothing.
2) Evolution is blocked at the inception of life and the existence of a first living cell. Life cannot form from non-life. Scientists are continuing to fail at intentionally producing this in laboratories. They are doing their best because, if it could be done, the first to do it would be wealthy and famous.
It has been hypothesized that Oxygen was not in Earth’s early atmosphere because it is one of the most highly reactive elements and would have prevented the spontaneous generation of a first living cell. Stanley Miller, in his famous 1953 experiments, excluded Oxygen from his “primitive” atmosphere. Did he have any evidence that Earth’s atmosphere was really that way? No. There is much to suggest otherwise. He just excluded it because his project didn’t work with oxygen included.
However, when Apollo 16 photographed the Earth’s upper atmosphere some 200 times, the initial reports suggested that the sun’s radiation on water vapor that ascends to Earth’s upper atmosphere may be our primary supply of Oxygen on Earth and not photosynthesis as was originally believed. You have to have sunlight and water for life to exist and/or form. When you have sunlight and water you have water vapor, which the sun’s radiation turns into Oxygen in the upper atmosphere.
Consider Venus, our closest neighbor in space, only 120 day journey by modern space ships. It has a high percentage of Oxygen in its atmosphere with absolutely no oxygen producing plant life. The origin of Earth’s oxygen, admittedly by evolutionists in the know, causes a serious problem for evolutionary theory. That has led to speculation that life was brought to this planet from outer space on an asteroid. What will they come up with next?
Even if by chance you could get all the necessary amino acids and poly peptides together at once, you have no assembly or reproductive instructions. The complexity of life hinges upon information. Without information life could not exist. The information is beyond what can be created in a laboratory. The assumption of information at the beginning blocks evolution.
Even the most basic life forms are more complex than my outboard boat motor. I have all the pieces for it but I can’t get them put together good enough to get it to run. It certainly could not assemble itself and neither could a “first cell” on Earth.
3) Organized living systems block evolutionary theory. Darwin admitted that if any organ existed that could not have been formed by numerous, slight modifications that his theory would absolutely break down.
Irreducibly complex systems such as blood clotting, the heart, the eye, the bacterial flagellum, etc. prove natural selection to be an inadequate explanation and it is safe to say Darwin’s theory has broken down. God has created in nature living systems that only can work once completely assembled and whole.
What part of the bacterial flagellum can you remove and it remain functional. Without all pieces and parts assembled it won’t work. Natural selection cannot adequately explain non-functional parts just hanging around until something functional forms, because non-functioning parts supply no functional advantage.
4) The lack of transitional fossil forms blocks evolution. The missing links are still missing. Leading evolutionists and paleontologists (such as the late Stephen Jay Gould) admit that there is precious little in the way of transitional forms and that they, in many cases, cannot even imagine functional intermediates. To account for this lack of evidence Gould theorized PE (punctuated equilibrium). However, there is not a single fossil that can be proven to be an intermediate. Even if PE were true, with the diversity of life that exists, one could expect to find some “real” intermediates if Darwin or Gould were right.
5) Natural Selection cannot adequately account for human intelligence. Hunting and gathering do not require the mental capacity to comprehend math and science. Alfred Russell Wallace, the co-founded of natural selection gave up the theory because what he viewed as primitive people proved intelligent beyond their needs. Natural Selection cannot explain ability far in excess of need, because it produces no functional advantage. Natural Selection cannot account for human intelligence and emotion.
Did Darwin Murder God? Not hardly…At best he could only be charged with attempted murder.
H.S. Rester
http://www.creationconferences.com
October 31st, 2007 at 1:01 pm
One of the best lessons that my grandfather ever gave me in counter-propaganda was to listen carefully to the slanders that your detractors spread. It’s usually an accurate description of what they’re up to.
In that light, this “documentary” should be very informative.
Take the “Conspiracy of Big Science” claim. Get real. Scientists make lousy conspirators by their very nature. They couldn’t keep the atom bomb a secret yet you’re expected to believe that they could manage a consiracy of this nature? Pu-Lease! On the other hand, how many of you have taken a gander at the Wedge Strategy documents? Let’s see what they have to say?[quote]Governing Goals:
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.[/quote]
So here we have a conspiracy to overthrow science and replace it with religion and you’re wondering why on earth the nasty, nasty scientists might react poorly to such a notion.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Craig, Good post and I hope that you continue to look for truth both with your mind and soul. I believe that the pursuit of truth leads inexorably to Jesus Christ or at least it did for me.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:00 pm
People can believe or have faith in whatever they like, but only science should be taught in a science class.
ID is not a scientific theory. One cannot use it with the scientific method or some up with anything about it that constitutes proof. Darwin’s theory is just that, a theory. Perhaps not fact, but it fits into science classes.
I fear that when you present students with basically the argument that whenever a concept gets too hard or difficult, one can just say “oh it must be god” that will just lead to a further dumbing down of america.
Also as someone who was raised christian I find it puzzling that people must try and validate or prove their faith in this manner. Why not just be confident in your faith? Movies like this and arguments about how Darwin’s theory is somehow wrong or anti christian just show that the people discussing don’t really have much confidence in their faith.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:49 pm
[Mar on October 30, 2007]”And abortion is justified? In who’s world?”
The atheists’ world.
atheism-adherent Sartre: “everything is permissible if God does not exist”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1148953550.334506.168420%40j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
1868 Haeckel, 2003 Dawkins, 1997 George Williams, 1995 Dennett: Darwinist atheists/ materialists downgrading the value of human life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-399aluF5uql89U1%40individual.net
the atheist Hitler & abortion
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1141921380.312364.144060%40i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
27 November 2004
Blue-state philosopher
Culture: Same-sex marriage? Euthanasia? Child’s play issues in the
avant-garde philosophy of Peter Singer
by Marvin Olasky
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/9987
does atheism-adherent Singer applaud Ukrainian organ harvesting?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1165947754.270509.75250%4080g2000cwy.googlegroups.com
atheism-adherents Hitler & Singer & Haeckel parallel
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1178847952.240927.276890%40w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
views of atheism-adherent Singer
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1141777876.224926.284110%40j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian, atheistic a-moral climate
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118315214.069039.280490%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
the atheism-adherent Hitler’s actions are quite understandable
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127506418.014874.230840%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah’s Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&
October 31st, 2007 at 9:27 pm
[Jarod S. on October 30, 2007]”many atheists still won’t believe, because they just don’t want to be held accountable to God”
the question of accountability/ autonomy favors conversion to atheism
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1137184204.545825.116810%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
October 31st, 2007 at 9:30 pm
[Craig on October 31, 2007]”I am a pre-med student and everyday in class, especially Biology, we are subjected to videos that actually try to tell us we came from Sponges in the ocean (i’m not kidding) or from a proto-cell that just happened to come together”
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith, 1986 Andrew Scott, 1999 Freeman Dyson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33bltcF3rgbovU1%40individual.net
some 1915-1999 doses of reality
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33arf3F3vjdggU1%40individual.net
Julie Thomas on biological design
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-329osfF3jopn9U1%40individual.net
October 31st, 2007 at 9:38 pm
[H.S. Rester on October 31, 2007]”the Big Bang….
something cannot come from nothing, unless there is a God and He brought something out of nothing”
side note: Flew recently became an ex-atheist– see
Habermas interview with Flew
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-336m89F3u087fU1%40individual.net
Flew, Antony. 1992. In _Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on
Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and _Homo
sapiens__, ed. by Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese (La Salle, IL:
Open Court), 285pp., 241. Flew is a well-known atheist, member of the
Council of the Freedom Assn. and the Council of the Royal Institute of
Philosophy, gave the Gifford Lectures in 1986, and was a Professor of
Philosophy at the U. of Reading:
Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore
begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be
embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it
seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of
what St. Thomas contended could not be proved philosophically;
namely, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe
can be comfortably thought of as being not only without end but
also without beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute
existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental
features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates.
Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is
neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face
of the Big Bang story.
Morris, Richard. 1982. _The Fate of the Universe_ (NY: Playboy Press),
183pp., 135-6:
This [oscillating universe] idea seems very appealing. Physicists
had found themselves uneasy with the idea of a universe that burst
into existence. Although there seemed to be no good scientific
objections to the idea of creation out of nothing, it couldn’t
easily be incorporated into existing theory. _Ex nihilo nihil fit_
goes the Latin phrase. Nothing is made out of nothing.
Steven Weinberg has impeccable anti-theism credentials; states he in
_Dreams of a Final Theory_ (1993), 249, “the great majority of the
world’s religious people would be surprised to learn that religion has
nothing to do with factual reality.” Turning now to his _The First
Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe_ (1977),
which is about the first few minutes of the universe’s existence
following the big bang, we read on 154, “Some cosmologists are
philosophically attracted to the oscillating model, especially because,
like the steady-state model, it nicely avoids the problem of Genesis.”
The oscillating universe model postulates “an endless cycle of expansion
and contraction stretching into the infinite past, with no beginning
whatever.”[153]
Weinberg then briefly discusses “one severe theoretical difficulty”[154]
for the oscillating model, that being the continual increase in entropy
“as the universe expands and contracts.” Since “right now” the amount
of entropy is “large, but not infinite,” it is “hard to see how the
universe could have previously experienced an infinite number of
cycles.” He adds that “however all these problems may be resolved.”
Well, it’s been about 20 years since Weinberg penned these words, and
the problem for the oscillating universe model of continually-increasing
entropy has not been solved. Neither has [Weinberg]”the problem of
Genesis.”
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/443d6bc0b02dd25e?dmode=source
October 31st, 2007 at 9:44 pm
‘the global flood’
Go Away, Flood Geology
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981223232528.26657B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
go away, young-earthism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310190200530.8725-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu
October 31st, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Hello H.S. Rester
I’d like to comment to some of your comments, if I may.
Quote “Now over 100 years after his death discoveries in science are killing his theory.”
Of course they are, but the diehard evo believer just doesn’t want to let go of this fantasy.
Quote “But don’t try to ask about these in the classroom unless you are ready to rumble.”
Oh yes, the ACLU will be all over anyone who dares put doubt of Darwinism into any students mind.
Macro evolution is the biggest hoax in the history of man kind. It’s an insult to intelligence of the mind to line up a bunch of skulls and call it macro evolution. These skulls DO NOT PROVE ANYTHING! (just shouting at those Darwinians) Where are the rest of the body bones to prove anything evolved from anything else??????????? I think someone should make a game out of it and call it Let’s Play Macroevolution, with game pieces consisting of all kinds of chimp, monkey, ape and human skulls, then line them up in the order they think these little skulls should line up. There won’t be a winner as far as truth in the game, only fantasy like the theory itself. Fossils are an evolutionists playground.
Quote “Then from this nothingness, for a reason we can’t explain, there was an explosion, and billions of years later, and here we are.”
And they say creation science and ID isn’t scientific. Look who’s talking. The Big Bang isn’t scientific either. Just one assumption after another. No proof or evidence. Even the billion of years is assumption. Nothing is testable or observable.
All cells are complex, and even if we did create artificial life, God still provided the information. Of course life cannot come from non-life. The idiocy of such a theory should have been thrown out a long time ago. Well, it was by Louis Pasteur … but evos didn’t want to let go.
Quote “The missing links are still missing.”
More like the chain is missing.
Nice to meet you H.S.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:16 am
WHY IS THIS A DEBATE. ID cannot and never can be proven (Pointing out faults in Evolution is not proof of ID), therefore it is philosophy NOT SCIENCE. End of discussion.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:59 am
“Now over 100 years after his death discoveries in science are killing his theory.”
Direct observable evidence of in support Modern Evolutionary Theory:
[1]Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
[2]Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.
[3] Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.
[4]Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
You are welcome to show these “Discoveries in science” which are killing his theory. I will read any reports, studies, hypotheses or experiments you present.
I would also like to point out that biologists hardly ascribe to “his” theory anymore, MET is much more complicated. Like any real science, is has changed and developed based on available, observable evidence.
“Macro evolution is the biggest hoax in the history of mankind.” (Overstate much?)
Demonstratively, you do not understand evolution. To simplify: “Macro” evolution is simply micro evolution spread out over thousands or hundreds of thousands of generations. Small beneficial changes, which can and have been proven to happen, over millions of years lead to specietion. I don’t know precisely what you are arguing with your fossil point, as your argument lacks proper claim-validation form, but I gather that you some how have come to think that the basis for evolutionary theory is the creation of lineage between different species’ bone structures. You, again, as demonstrated by your own statements, do not understand or have ever attempted to understand MET. And to address your point: yes, they do prove aspects of evolution. Not alone of course, but they do provide evidence for the relationship between species. One small example I believe your intellect can handle: Vestigial bone structures, such as the useless human tail bone or the minuscule finger bones in a whale’s fin are both striking tellers of a common ancestry.
“Then from this nothingness, for a reason we can’t explain, there was an explosion, and billions of years later, and here we are.”
Actually, modern physics explains that a rapid expansion (not explosion, stop being ignorant) of all matter from a point of infinite mass was likely a result of a pattern of contracting and expanding mass throughout the universe. Based on empirical evidence, this is a reasonable proposition. Despite your ignorance, there is observable and testable evidence for the Big Bang theory, it was not just pulled up out of no where. Do you think some man was sitting around, and suddenly decided that god did not create the universe, so it must of been an explosion cause that sounded coooool…….?
I will direct to to sites which put evidence for the Big Bang theory in terms you can understnad, and also cite their sources: http://www.leyada.jlm.k12.il/proj/black/evidence.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
Additionally, your reasoning in your Big Bang comment precludes the existence of a God, as it precludes anything coming into existence out of nothing… who created God then?
“only fantasy like the theory itself.”
Hold on, you are calling an idea that resulted from observation a fantasy? What is religion then? And what reason do you propose for the creation of said fantasy?
“All cells are complex, and even if we did create artificial life, God still provided the information.”
Complexity in no way proves Intelligent Design. Even if it could not explained by MET, it would still not prove ID. I would only prove flaws in MET. That is a fundamental flaw in ID argument: it can only point out flaws in evolution as its proof. That is a logical fallacy.
To conclude, Marilyn, I would like to recommend too things for you: Do not criticize scientific theories as being assumptions when you have clearly done little true research on the subjects involved. Additionally, by doing so you insult the skill and intellects of everyone of the literally millions of scientists who have come to the same conclusions. You run the risk of presenting the “They are smarter than me” argument. You should also consider that religion, on which ID is clearly based, is a set of assumptions. It cannot be denied. In no conceivable way short of the sudden appearance of god incarnate can ID be proven. How can you not understand that that precludes it from being a scientific theory? If it can’t be tested or supported with empirical evidence (as evolution can, as I demonstrated), its not science. Period.
By the way, I hereby put a moratorium of the use of the phrase “evos” by any religious person for obvious reasons- I don’t want to be burned at the stake for interpreting my world based on empirical evidence and not Religious beliefs.
But really, can you not use name calling? It implies lack of intellect, ignorance, prejudice and general stupidity. In short, it validates all my assumptions about you.
Also, can you phrase your response in a clear, refutive argument, with claims backed up by evidence and not by your own confusion as to how a concept works based on your own lack of rationality?
November 1st, 2007 at 5:02 am
With all the back and forth, with most comments from ne side, change the key words are true about the other side. When it comes down to teaching ID, sure why not, but in a philosophy class setting and no other type of setting. Education should be for teaching those younger how society works, how things work, how we got here, the usual suspected questions, who what where when why and how.
To teach of imaginary concepts, is to waste precious time in other beneficial areas of study, but some may opt to persue them if they so desire (or pushed by family). What also breaks us into groups is the idea that I or you can mandate what others can or will do. The past has proved beyond any doubts, the religious domination has harmed rather than spread the free thoughts of others,, and this movie wants to paint the opposite theory of oppressions.
Organized crime of any form is not acceptable, or should be. This debate over ID or not to ID is a waste of factual time with societal issues, like prohibition, which the ID crowd sems to relish within.
you can have your faith, or that of your fathers and mothers, but you try to prevent my peaceful existance without your version of insane, you will have a problem.
Hense we had our first amendment, which the ID crowd has twisted into simply meaning, “no state sponsored church”. The first amendment means far more than that, but the political power the ID creators (religious lobby) have is still that above the Teachers Unions.
The politic drive is that old time religious cash in hand, the fight is in the tax status of religious establishments. The same historical drive that parasites often resort to, taxation of those that are too dumb to realize the truth. The real fight is right there, that ole tax free exemption, and the power all that extra cash entails. If the first amendment was honored, and this insane oxymoronic term of non-profit religious org was dropped, you would not be forced into your income taxes. The government would collect so much in taxes, if based on a flat 10%, they could never justify the personal income taxes. But you are not supposed to know this.
Tell us ben stein, what parasite org are you working for.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:27 am
Can anyone supporting ID and feels that the “victims” portrayed in this film were unjustly treated, answer one simple question?
Why would the Templeton Foundation which by no stretch of the imagination would exclude God from any form of research,and states that “We believe that open debate and competition among positions is the best long-term
method for choosing a wise course of action” say this about the Intelligent Design movement?
“The foundation doesn’t support the political movement known as ‘Intelligent Design.’ This is for three reasons: We don’t believe the science underpinning the ‘Intelligent Design’ movement is sound, we don’t support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge and the foundatioon is a non-political entity and does not engage in, or support, political movements.”
Anyone? Anyone?
November 1st, 2007 at 8:50 am
FROM GOOGLE “arxiv censorship”
Archive Freedom Home Pagearchive freedom, physics, arXiv.org, preprint archive, censorship, suppression, blacklist, freedom of speech, Carlos Castro, Robert Gentry, Brian Josephson, …
archivefreedom.org
Proof of Censorship Documentation of Censorship by the Los Alamos National Laboratory arXiv Staff. (now at Cornell Univ.) The following documents are available in straight …
www.orionfdn.org/documents/index.htm
The Great 21st Century Scientific Watergate
Documentation of Censorship by the Los Alamos National Laboratory arXiv Staff
censorship by physics preprint archiveCovert censorship by the physics preprint archive …. I successfully posted my paper (arxiv:physics/0312012) but then found it had been moved from hep-th, …
www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/archivefreedom/main.html
Covert censorship by the physics preprint archive
A personal perspective from Brian Josephson
November 1st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Rejecting a scientist for being bad at science is not censorship.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:53 pm
[Jörgen Lundgren on October 29th, 2007]”In my humble opinion; why the professors of evolutionism are so aggressive against ‘ID-people’, is because they’re threatening their beliefs”
[david on October 30th, 2007]
Beliefs about what?
Their beliefs in evolution. Notice how evolutionists always talk in terms like “The power of nature”, and I even heard on National Geographic one time “The miraculous power of nature…”. It’s like a religion to them, and nature is their god. Exchange the word “nature” with “God”, and you got a christian belief. The power behind the existance of our world is just labelled differently; Evolutionists call it “Nature”, ID-people “Intelligent Designer”, Creationists “Creator” and Christians “God”.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:54 pm
[Garrison Seeber on November 1, 2007]”Rejecting a scientist for being bad at science is not censorship.”
Do you consider Bernard d’Abrera:
“a scientist”?
“bad at science”?
Witham, Larry. 2003. _By Design: Science and the Search
for God_ (San Francisco: Encounter Books), 248pp. Three
paragraphs on 183-4, with Witham’s bracketing:
That, at least, is the remarkable public claim of one of
the world’s leading experts on butterflies. At the same
London museum where Patterson had held forth,
Bernard d’Abrera rose to prominence for his mastery of
the butterfly, which he had studied from age three. In
2001, he came out with the beautifully illustrated _The
Concise Atlas of Butterflies of the World_, running to
353 pages in coffee table size. A summa of his career,
thirty years of work, it contains illustrations of nearly
every genus of butterfly ever described. Here are all the
ingredients for a possible butterfly tree of life. But then,
a considerable section of the book is devoted to
lambasting science’s failure to fund preservation of
butterflies and the environment; all the money,
complains d’Abrera, is squandered looking for an
elusive Darwinian tree.
“They fill the universities and the scientific institutions
after their own kind, and relentlessly pursue useless
theories about the past origins of species, which have no
bearing whatsoever on the systematic extinction of
species in their present,” he wrote. His book is an attack
on the “arrogant attitude” of modern materialist science,
which claims it is not philosophical, but indeed is
profoundly so, not allowing experts like himself to
categorize nature’s wonders in ways that acknowledge
them, with Linnaean-like clarity, as God’s creations.
The author, who describes himself as a “Natural
Historian and Philosopher,” says his work is an antidote
to “the very real excesses of evolutionist literature and
its relentless propaganda.” Accordingly, his chapters on
biology, classification, philosophical argument and
mimicry spare the reader any hint of the “evolutionary
bias.”
D’Abrera labels the bias in question the “Theory of the
Accidental Origin and Evolution of Species by Chance.”
Breaking from that assumption, he “simply wishes to
free himself and his readers of all that viscid,
asphyxiating baggage, so as to leave the study of the
lepidoptera [insects with two pairs of broad wings]
entirely in the peace and tranquility of an objective
science, based on observation, experimental
demonstration, and above all, common sense.”
November 1st, 2007 at 7:44 pm
[Marilyn on October 31, 2007]”Oh yes, the ACLU will be all over anyone who dares put doubt of Darwinism into any students mind.”
What matters is what elite judges having a secular religion say.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3aenpiF69fl4rU1%40individual.net
“The Big Bang isn’t scientific either. Just one assumption after another. No proof or evidence. Even the billion of years is assumption. Nothing is testable or observable.”
Incorrect.
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/443d6bc0b02dd25e?dmode=source
The Discovery That the Universe Is Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
Go Away, Flood Geology
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981223232528.26657B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
go away, young-earthism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310190200530.8725-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu
omphalic YEC and blindwatchmakingist parallels
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411270821.29ee3dd9%40posting.google.com
November 1st, 2007 at 7:44 pm
[Garrison Seeber on November 1, 2007]”ID cannot and never can be proven”
Do you think biology has the appearance of having been designed by intelligence?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-36pqk2F55ibnrU1%40individual.net
2006 Dawkins: life has “an overwhelming illusion of ‘design.’”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1172243872.240034.24900%408g2000cwh.googlegroups.com
2005 Dawkins: “the illusion of design”; “things that look designed (like birds”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1172240834.278579.111180%40q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
“I will read any reports, studies, hypotheses or experiments you present.”
Excellent. Please let me know when you’ve read these items:
Gould’s 1980 “Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com
1971 Salisbury’s Doubts about the Synthetic Euphoria
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402290951.48d08417%40posting.google.com
1967 Macbeth calls for “a full disclosure”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405231903.3eb81283%40posting.google.com
“’Macro’ evolution is simply micro evolution spread out over thousands or hundreds of thousands of generations. Small beneficial changes, which can and have been proven to happen, over millions of years lead to specietion.”
Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
fallacy of false extrapolation
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0309100834320.2240460-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
better conception of faulty extrapolation
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0309142357280.7954-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
J. Huxley’s “no”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405271915.6b9b6ce1%40posting.google.com
“Vestigial bone structures, such as the useless human tail bone or the minuscule finger bones in a whale’s fin are both striking tellers of a common ancestry.”
Fatally Flawed: Vestigial Organs, Biogeography, Homology,
and Embryology as Evidence for the Theory of Evolution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0305250118100.2340516-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
_Basilosaurus_’s purported vestigial leg
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709233733.17288H-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Bogus ‘Vestigial Leg’ Claims
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9910142302001.6397-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
“who created God then?”
12. Answer as to why, unlike the universe, the designer(s) does not
need a cause(s) of its existence
in
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/443d6bc0b02dd25e?dmode=source
“can you not use name calling? It implies lack of intellect, ignorance, prejudice and general stupidity.”
Feynman, R. Reid, and Berlinski on _ad hominems_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990102235105.11328B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
November 1st, 2007 at 7:45 pm
[Sam L.]”The past has proved beyond any doubts, the religious domination has harmed rather than spread the free thoughts of others”
Tutu: “If any book should be banned by those who rule unjustly and as tyrants, then it is the Bible.”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1179340230.530341.317370%40o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
“The same historical drive that parasites often resort to, taxation of those that are too dumb to realize the truth.
…. Tell us ben stein, what parasite org are you working for.”
1884 atheism-adherent Galton: “the jews are specialized for a parasitical existence”
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1176174475.647539.256600%40o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
Goebbels diary entry for 13 May 1943
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120450591.444214.186670%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
One might well ask why are there any Jews in the world order?
That would be exactly like asking why are there potato bugs?
Nature is dominated by the law of struggle. There will always
be parasites who will spur this struggle on and intensify the
process of selection between the strong and the weak. The
principle of struggle dominates also in human life. One must
merely know the laws of this struggle to be able to face it. ….
In nature life always takes measures against parasites; in the life
of nations that is not always the case. From this fact the Jewish
peril actually stems. There is therefore no other recourse left
for modern nations except to exterminate the Jew….
….we are forever members of the Aryan race. …. Aboriginal
man, the Fuehrer believes, did not know the lie….
The nations that have been the first to see through the Jew and
have been the first to fight him are going to take his place in the
domination of the world.
Darwinist Bolsche; Nazi Darwinist Johann S.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143660228.632158.182410%40t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Claim: Haeckel joined the Thule Society.
Reality: that claim is unsubstantiated:
control - f/ “find” for: the search
http://www.waldorfcritics.com/active/archives/WCA0102.2.html
control - f/ “find” for: apologies
http://www.xn--enzyklopdie-s8a.de/Ernst_Haeckel.html
Maser: “Darwin, one of Hitler’s ‘teachers’”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143173595.248723.143420%40t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
atheist Hitler on the arrogant drivel of opinionated sky pilots/ clergymen
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1178220883.051154.190660%40n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
Darwin name “like dust in every room of a grotesque house”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1177097591.881438.168990%40n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
Draft 2 of a chronology of Darwinian thought and the march to the Final Solution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1122434358.640904.162640%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah’s Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:29 am
a young creation
http://www.niagarafrontierbible.com/92307YC1.php
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:13 am
From
http://www.niagarafrontierbible.com/92307YC1.php
“Read just about any textbook and watch about any movie and what do you hear? The universe and all of life began millions and billions of years ago. ….
A Young Creation exposes the falsehood of evolutionary dating methods and reveals beyond a shadow of a doubt that we really do have A Young Creation”
Marilyn, what’s your response to this?:
(It’s also in
Go Away, Flood Geology
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981223232528.26657B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
)
daily growth bands in coral
Hayward states in _Creation and Evolution_ (1985), 95,
_ _ _ Certain living species of coral and of shellfish not only have
_ _ _ annual growth bands like tree rings; they also exhibit _daily_
_ _ _ growth bands. With experience, researchers can pick out about 365
_ _ _ of the daily growth bands between the yearly ones.
He adds that
_ _ _ certain fossil corals and fossil shellfish from the Devonian period
_ _ _ display the same phenomenon.^16 And in both the corals^17 and the
_ _ _ shellfish^18 there are about 400 daily bands between the annual
_ _ _ ones.
[16: D.E. Wonderly, in an appendix to R.C. Newman and H.J. Eckelmann,
_ _ _ _Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth_ (1981), 96.
17: C.T. Scrutton, “Periodicity in Devonian coral growth” _Paleontology_
_ _ _ 7: 552-8 (1965).
18: S.J. Mazzullo, “Length of the year during the Silurian and Devonian
_ _ _ periods - new values” _Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull._ 82: 1085-6 (1971).]
How conventional geology accounts for the existence of 400 daily growth
bands between the fossil shellfish’s and coral’s annual growth bands:
a) “…. measurements indicate that the length of the _year_ is not
changing,” a natural consequence of the fact that “there is no
appreciable friction in outer space to slow down the forward motion of
the earth as it orbits the sun.” IOW, it takes the same amount of time
for the earth to make a trip around the sun now as it did 400 million
years ago.
b) Mostly because of the tides’ friction, the earth’s rate of spinning
is gradually declining, which means that days are continually getting
longer, and which also means that looking ever-further into the past,
the days continually get shorter.
Now, a combination of
a) constant duration of year
+
b) looking ever-more into the past, days that get ever-shorter
=
looking ever-more into the past, get ever-more numerous days to a year
An exceedingly crude calculation:
As measured using atomic clocks, the earth is losing .000015 seconds per
day.[Hayward]
.000015 secs_ _ 365 days_ _ .005475 secs lost
———— x ——– = ——————–
_ _ day_ _ _ yr_ _ _ every yr
Now, using I-presume-radioactive dating methods, the Devonian is
estimated to have lasted from 408 to 362 million years ago.[Eldredge,
_Fossils_ (1991), xvi]. For the calculation, I’ll use the figure
400,000,000 years ago.
Multiplying
.005475 secs lost
—————– x 400,000,000 yrs = 2,190,000 secs were lost from
_ _ every yr_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ the Devonian yr.
So,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 min_ _ 1 hr_ _ 1 our-day_ _
2,190,000 secs lost x ——- x —— x ——— = 25.3 our-days lost
_ _ from Dev yr_ _ _ 60 secs_ _ 60 min_ _ 24 hrs_ _ _ _ from the Dev yr.
Q - 25.3 days = 365 our-days
Q_ _ _ _ = 390.3 = 390 days in a Devonian year.
Compare the end result of “390 days in a Devonian year” with
[Hayward]”in both the [Devonian] corals and the [Devonian] shellfish
there are about 400 daily bands between the annual ones.” A more
refined calculation would take into consideration the changing length of
the days as we go ever-further into the past, instead of using simply 1
our-day = 24 hours.
The rate of slowdown in earth’s rotation speed is probably occurring
more and more slowly as time goes on. I see no problem in using today’s
rate-of-slowing-down in the calculation, provided we make our final
answer be a lower bound. Using .000 020 instead of the original .000 015
produces the answer_ _ _ _ 399_ _ _ _ instead of_ _ _ _ 390
days in the Devonian year.
Chris Pellant, _An Illustrated Guide to Fossils_ (1995), 44:
_ _ _ Much evidence from fossils is now available to support the…
_ _ _ evidence for the decrease in the number of days per year through
_ _ _ time. Corals and their fossils have been used extensively in this
_ _ _ work. It is known that modern corals have about 360 growth
_ _ _ increments each year. These would seem to be daily additions to
_ _ _ the coral structure. This idea is supported by the fact that the
_ _ _ algae that live symbiotically with these corals influence coral
_ _ _ growth. These algae use photosynthesis only during daylight, and
_ _ _ so it seems likely that the corals probably have a similar daily
_ _ _ cycle. Fossil corals, like their present-day equivalents, have
_ _ _ fine growth-ridges. Because seasonal patterns are superimposed on
_ _ _ the daily pattern, careful study of the growth ridges can determine
_ _ _ the annual total.
A table from Pellant:
Coral_ _ _ _ Stratigraphic age_ _ _ _ Days per year
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Geophysical estimate_ _ Coral evidence
_Streptelasma__ _ Ordovician_ _ _ _ _ _ 408_ _ _ _ _ 412
_Keytophyllum__ _ Silurian_ _ _ _ _ 400_ _ _ _ _ 400
_Heliophyllum__ _ Devonian_ _ _ _ _ 395_ _ _ _ _ 385-405
_Lithostrotion__ _ Carboniferous_ _ _ _ 390-396_ _ _ 398
_Lophophyllidium_ Carboniferous_ _ _ _ 390-396_ _ _ 380
In conclusion, certain fossil organisms’ annual and daily growth bands
provide independent confirmation of the fact that the Devonian period
existed about 400 million years ago.
go away, young-earthism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310190200530.8725-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:54 am
The problem with people who believe in NeoDarwinism is that they assume a lot and don’t really ask enough questions in order to justify their position. Check out my webcolumn: Exercise Your Wonder on www.arn.org or my column on www.creationdigest.com. They explain how the body works and how easy it is for us to lose the battle of the “survival of the fittest” through disease, dysfunction, and death. It’s not a pretty picture.
Howard Glicksman M.D. (Dr.G.)
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:59 pm
197. Marilyn Says:
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:29 am
a young creation
http://www.niagarafrontierbible.com/92307YC1.php
198. david Says:
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:13 am
From
http://www.niagarafrontierbible.com/92307YC1.php
“Read just about any textbook and watch about any movie and what do you hear? The universe and all of life began millions and billions of years ago. ….
A Young Creation exposes the falsehood of evolutionary dating methods and reveals beyond a shadow of a doubt that we really do have A Young Creation”
Marilyn, what’s your response to this?:
hi david
My response. Psalm 118:8 It is better to put trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.
You know david, it is very hard to trust anything that pertains to the big bang by speck of dust to common ancestor(evolving) to billions of years as being truthful. When one hears of how the Bible is an authentic book, and this is backed up by evidence, which is PURPOSELY HID FROM THE PUBLIC! by the way - how can anyone swallow man’s word on the origins of life just because they refuse to accept God and the Bible. Just because they want to hang onto some fantasy, a fairytale and convince themselves that this big bang dust speck was the start and created all we see, didn’t mean they had the right to brainwash me or anyone else with that fantasy/fairytale.
One would be amazed what has been suppressed and not allowed to be seen, heard, or talked about. I had posted these links on another blog here, but I believe many should check these videos out: (here is the evidence for the skeptics and the critics)
http://www.niagarafrontierbible.com/81306GW1.php
http://www.niagarafrontierbible.com/82006GW2.php
http://www.niagarafrontierbible.com/82706GW3.php
Oh yes, I was taught this stupid theory as well, and when I found out what a hoax it was, it angered me, and to think I was taken by deception for the longest time. And I just couldn’t believe such a hoax is taught, just because ppl throughout history wanted to push the real creator out of their lives – and then, took it upon themselves, that they were also going to push God out of everyone’s else’s life as well. Who gave them permission in the first place, to make a decision like that for me? If certain ppl didn’t want God in their life, fine, but how dare they push this onto the world, onto America, present it as fact, and knowing well it isn’t. Who’s idea of a cruel joke was this? Well, I find absolutely no humor in it.
Truth always prevails. Do those who defend this fake origins idea realize, that the scientists who are now creationists or ID’ers, were once taught evolution? Even believed it. Yet, you want to put them down, and say what they have to offer isn’t scientific, say it should stay out of school. These scientists who turned their backs on evolution, did it for a reason. Because they discovered what a deceptive hoax it was. They think the world is entitled to hear the truth, and let others know how UNSCIENTIFIC and A LIE this evolution thing is.
So, who thought it was smart for pushing God out of ppl’s lives? How has this world improved since God was getting pushed out of lives? Did this improvement mean becoming an atheist? How is the grass greener on the atheist side? So this green grass means abortion, higher rate of teen pregnancy, more drug use, pornography, higher rate of murder and rape, prostitution, promiscuous sex at the expense of spreading more disease, the drop in morals and values, life has no meaning anymore, and marriage is no longer sacred??? IS this the greener grass one is suppose to have because people do not want God to no longer exist? It seems since God has been getting pushed out, the grass is getting redder, not greener. The blood shed and the hate have been on the rise since people pushed God out of their lives and the atheist decided for me that God should be pushed out of my life too. I don’t recall anyone asking my opinion on this. What? Only the atheist, the evolutionists, and the ACLU’s opinions are the only ones that are allowed? It seems my freedom got suppressed right along with God.
So, because I’m a Christian, I get kicked in the face because I believe in God, who promotes love and to treat others as you’d like to be treated? To forgive your enemy and not judge? To love thy neighbor as you do yourself? To have a purpose and a meaning for my life? So, these things are bad???? Yeah.
You see, God doesn’t need to literally step in and debunk The ToE. Why? Because man’s deceptive/wrong ideas self-destruct on their own. God’s intention you know. God designed our brains, he knows how we think, he knew the foolishness of man and his ideas, he warned us, and he lets us see how those foolish ideas affect mankind, and how those foolish ideas will also destroy themselves, as they always do and become a part of history.
I can confidently say, God is real, his Bible are his words, and Jesus was real. It was this year, I became a Christian, but before I did, throughout my life, God did give me hints here and there. And especially when I lost my daughter, he gave me the biggest hint, that she was with him. She passed away two years ago. It wasn’t that my faith wasn’t there, but I just couldn’t figure out how this evolution fit in with God. My youngest son who became a Christian before I did, and my husband who is an atheist, are the two who convinced me to look into this evolution thing. That’s when I discovered creation and what a hoax evolution was. Once I made that discovery, it was easy to become a Christian. You see, since the beginning of time, the Bible has not been disproved yet, and you know what? It never will be.
This is my response to our earth being a young earth, because the Bible is truth, and the Bible, the King James Bible that the Christians use are God’s words. The Bible that we have not added to nor have taken anything away. The Bible we have not changed to our beliefs, but left it alone, because it is the actual words of our creator, God.
The onus is on the one who can show that the Bible and God to be a lie, false, and deceptive.
~M
“Be somebody because God didn’t create a nobody.”