Ben Stein, who was once supposedly a respectable intellectual and who then became a host for some kind of television game show or something -- I don't know, I've never watched that kind of crap -- hosts this movie on Intelligent Design, called Expelled. Everything in the Universe, he thinks, was created by a "loving god," without specifying in the least where this god came from. It seems it's OK for his god to be unexplained, but not the universe.
But Stein and his movie friends claim the IDers are somehow being prosecuted by the science community, when they are not really practicing science in the first place. And the poor souls are unable to get tenure, all because they oppose Darwin. The media, the courts, the educational system, are all in on the scam and holding them down. They apparently don't understand that they aren't practicing science, but instead merely asserting that they should be allowed a place at science's table....
Just watching this film is dangerous, says Stein! You might lose your friends, or even your job! Oh dear....
What a load of crap.
22 comments:
This is a typical claim, that "they are not practicing science." But since "science" is defined by Darwinists as only supporting Darwinism and not criticizing it, then for those who see flaws in Darwinism, it is impossible to practice science. You have set up a tautology.
If Darwinism is so perfectly provable and proven, let it stand for itself, and stop all these attacks on people. Let people speak without fear of persecution. The only reason I can see for all the vituperation is the fear that they are on to something you don’t want to know about.
"But since "science" is defined by Darwinists" blah, blah, blah
Science is pretty well defined and the Modern Theory of Evolution stands very well for itself and I do not know of anyone who has gone to prison in the US for stating his opinion against evolution.
So claims of persecution are balderdash.
But claims that ID is "not science" are backed up by a judicial ruling. ID had its day in court and it was found to be first cousin to creationism and expelled from a high school science class.
As a practicing Bio-Chemist at a leading "Big Pharma lab" I can proclaim a first hand account of how having an ID position will keep from moving up the ladder. My main concern with the Scientific community begins with "tangible matter" and avoids exploring the obvious question to all, "how it got there". The "Big Bang" theory has them scrambling (or completely ignoring the topic). From my little desk in my lab I have yet to here any apologist for Darwin explain the "Bacterial Flagellum" within the cell.
To the Biochemist Anonymous - If one actually looks for it in scientific literature, one can immediately find at least a dozen references explaining bacteria flagellum. Here are few references for your enjoyment...
Aizawa, S.-I., 2001. Bacterial flagella and type III secretion systems, FEMS Microbiology Letters 202: 157-164.
Büttner D., and U. Bonas, 2002. Port of entry - the Type III secretion translocon, Trends in Microbiology 10: 186-191.
Heuck, C. J., 1998. Type III protein secretion systems in bacterial pathogens of animals and plants, Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 62: 379-433.
McNab, R. M., 1999. The Bacterial Flagellum: Reversible Rotary Propellor and Type III Export Apparatus. Journal of Bacteriology 181: 7149—7153.
Yonekura, K., S. Maki, D. G. Morgan, D. J. DeRosier, F.Vonderviszt, K.Imada, and K. Namba, 2000. The Bacterial Flagellar Cap as the Rotary Promoter of Flagellin Self-Assembly, Science 290: 2148-2152.
The critical reactions I've read regarding this movie and the incompatibility of ID and science don't seem all that intelligent.
Even evolutionist science cannot answer one single question with complete certainty: WHERE DID IT ALL COME FROM???
I think even evolutionists want to believe in something more than humans evolving from apes, that evolved from a puddle of urine struck by an electrical charge. And all of these conditions had to line up with a probability requirement greater than that of the chances of a tornado sweeping through a field and magically assembling a completely fragmented 747 plane back into a fully functional passenger jet. For all you statisticians out there...do the math and report back here!
It is more "believable" that a God who loves you and me created all this. He shows himself in so many ways through miraculous things that traditional science simply cannot explain away. And I don't see any evolutionists out there trying to "help" others by explaining evolution to them. Yet so many who love God are burdened in their very souls with hearts larger than the state of California to devote their lives to reaching out to those who don't believe simply to tell them the good news of how much God loves them. This burden doesn't come from fear of people, but from a love of God who first loved us! Don't you get it...even God gives us freedom to NOT choose Him. Many take that choice and do not realize what they are missing out in life...real life! If you can give me a good reason why someone would care enough about you to be burdened over such a critical decision you would make, without getting anything in return over it, I'm all ears!
It's about so much more than living to learn that we evolved from apes, only to die...game over...end of story. Get real!
Anonymous: where did "God" come from?
I believe first you must be able to explain where the first proteins or aminos came from to combine with the electrical charge from nowhere to produce the incredible elixir of life that somehow evolved into an intelligently reasoning human being that can talk himself out of reason like this.
Anonymous: So I have to first explain ordinary life before you explain the earlier origin of the omnipotent form of superlife you claim exists?
It sounds like Anonymous is trying to show you some light on the matter. Short answer: "Yes". Please explain how the ingredients for ordinary life came to exist, if you can.
I can't, of course, explain the origins of life.
But I find it amazing that you would get hung up on the creation of an amino acid, and not on a being with sufficient intelligent and capability to create a Universe (and, with it, the amino acids).
Can you explain that difference?
Just curious here. Do I have to know the origins of the human race to know whether or not a piece of software was engineered?
Something is engineered or it isn't. I believe to end all discussion of ID by saying, "It is religion, ignore it" is to do ID injustice and stunt the ability to scientifically answer the Paley watch argument. The reality is we know things are designed and engineered in this world. Even if aliens from another planet did it, it is still engineered.
View One: hydrogen plus time equals the complexity of the human brain.
View Two: God plus His Word equals the complexity of the human brain.
If you expect Ben Stein to explain where God came from, then I would urge you to ask the chance darwinian crowd to explain where hydrogen came from. Logically there has to be an eternal...
There is an article speculating about abiogenesis in the February issue of Discover magazine. The formation of ice creates tiny holes where organic molecules are concentrated. Then do this for a long period of time.
"View Two: God plus His Word equals the complexity of the human brain."
But this view is obvious religious nonsense and the other view is a scientific hypothesis.
The theory of evolution was an interesting offering for the 1800s. However, Darwinism has mutated into a religion. It takes more faith to believe in evolution today than to believe in the Creator of whom Darwin spoke. They would have to throw Darwin out of the classroom today for speaking of a Creator. I quote Darwin from The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Everyone has their religion. For the atheists it appears evolution pacifies them.
"It takes more faith to believe in evolution today..."
An opinion by someone who obviously has not the slightest understanding of science or evolution.
If we cannot understand the things of this earth...why in the world do you think we could EVER comprehend the things of Heaven????The Wind blows...and although we cannot see it we know that it is there...The air we breathe cannot be seen but it fills our lungs with life giving breath...
GOD IS AND ALWAYS WAS.....ONE DAY WE WILL ALL KNOW THE ANSWERS....As HE will be our Teacher..Until then I will try and live my life after our EXAMPLE SENT FROM HEAVEN ABOVE..HIS SON JESUS CHRIST....AS ONLY THIS IS PERTINENT TO MY SALVATION....and I live my life hopeing to live it the Best I can ...someday to return with Honor.....
If we cannot understand the things of this earth...why in the world do you think we could EVER comprehend the things of Heaven????The Wind blows...and although we cannot see it we know that it is there...The air we breathe cannot be seen but it fills our lungs with life giving breath...
GOD IS AND ALWAYS WAS.....ONE DAY WE WILL ALL KNOW THE ANSWERS....As HE will be our Teacher..Until then I will try and live my life after our EXAMPLE SENT FROM HEAVEN ABOVE..HIS SON JESUS CHRIST....AS ONLY THIS IS PERTINENT TO MY SALVATION....and I live my life hopeing to live it the Best I can ...someday to return with Honor.....
God created the universe and abides by all the laws of nature (which he created). He IS science. He uses scientific law to create all that we see. The "big-bang" theory is so non-scientific that I wonder why it is even taught in schools. Now you don't have to agree with me. I have the right to state this and do not have to "prove" why I believe it to be true.
The issue is not over explaining "how" God created the universe (we'll find out more on the other side) but about academic freedom in our institutions of learning. Those who want to explore this idea must have the freedom to do so without their job being threatened.
Our children are entitled to hear all the ideas about the origin of the universe (including Intelligent Design) in a public school classroom. If not, then we are no different than the fascists of Hitler's regime.
If one is confident in his ideas, then he will not feel threatened when those of opposing views voice theirs! Those of you who are opposed to this movie don't have to agree with it. Just chill out and let others who believe differently have the freedom to do so, without being ostracized.
True academic freedom allows professors to teach all ideas. True academic freedom allows students to hear all viewpoints.
"Our children are entitled to hear all the ideas about the origin of the universe (including Intelligent Design) in a public school classroom."
Well, the Dover School District paid $1 million to discover that a Republican judge didn't think that it was appropriate to teach religious non-science nonsense in a high school biology classroom. And philosophy classes are pretty rare in high school.
"True academic freedom allows students to hear all viewpoints."
Well, if every teacher and every student lived to be a thousand years old, then there might be time enough to expose the thousand false nonsense ideas that compete with the truth. But life is a little shorter than that and so teaching ideas that actually make sense would seem to be a wise decision.
My take on the movie was different. I think everyone should make sure that they go see the film. You will see that Stein interviews Dawkins, and Dawkins admits that some intelligent something could have seeded the earth. Dawkins would not say what that something was other than it was not God. Dawkins cannot concede the possibility of a god or of the God because it would destroy all that he believes. His faith rests in the evolutionary theory. I suppose in that sense, nature or the evolutionary theory becomes his god.
It would also be nice if those who do not like this movie to realize the purpose of the movie was to show how academia is intolerant of other views. If ID was so wrong, then there should be major debates between evolutionists and those who believe that there is some intelligent designer (whether it be God or some alien). Make the debates public for all to see on all of the major networks. It is pretty clear that the major television networks agree with the theories of evolution. They should not have any problem asking all of the top ID proponents and the top evolution proponents to a GREAT debate. Maybe all of the ID people are scared to do this, but I have never heard the challenge from the evolution side. I have only heard the ID side say that it wants to be heard. The evolution side keeps saying "no" because it is a religious argument. Why not let the masses hear what has to be said and let them decide? This country is suppose to be free to ideas and is suppose to let people have the freedom to believe. Well, why don't we let all people know both sides in a great debate and let them decide what they want to believe. The problem is that the evolutionists do not want to let the ID people speak. Both sides can define their positions so there is no question as to what each side believes. Then each side can present the pure evidence and comment on how the evidence supports its position and how it goes against its position.
I personally would benefit from a debate that looks at all of the evidence plus points to future research ideas. I would like the people in America to be free to specify where their tax dollars go to support research. If they want to spend research dollars on ID, let them. They can change their mind if the ID community does not produce results. The same would be available for the evolutionists.
Open dialogue will be much better for both sides, that is, the side that is right. So many times I have heard evolutionists say that ID proponents are closed-minded. A closed-minded person is one who will not listen to the other's position. That, to me, describes more evolutionists than ID proponents. I ask both sides to be open-minded and present all the facts and describe why the facts support their position rather than call each other names and belittle each other. Usually those are tactics of someone who is losing an argument and don't know what else to say.
"Dawkins admits that some intelligent something could have seeded the earth."
Note that "intelligent design" proponents have also admitted this in an obvious attempt to get around the fact that if they explicitly acknowledge a god as the designer, the judge will toss them out of the science classroom.
And even if it was true, it would only push back the origin of life to somewhere else. So it really does not have anything to do with evolution, it is abiogenesis.
And Dawkins would not have been tricked into admitting this obvious scientific possibility if he had known that the intention of the producer would be to make him look silly.
"His faith rests in the evolutionary theory."
You seem to be quite confused about the meanings of the words "faith" and "evolutionary theory". One is religious and the other is scientific and ne'er the twain should be in the same sentence.
"I would like the people in America to be free to specify where their tax dollars go to support research."
Why not just vote directly on the "truth" and forget about the research?
"I ask both sides to be open-minded and present all the facts"
And they have done that for 20+ years and one side actually has facts and the other side has a little bit of "hand-waving" that does not mean anything.
Post a Comment