Who among you fears the Lord and obeys the voice of His Servant?

EXPELLED – Living with a New Kind of Fear

Of course everybody heard about Galileo Galilei.  The poor fellow (who actually remained a devoted Christian to the end of his life) was denounced as a heretic by the church of Rome, even though he was right about the planets revolving around the sun and not the earth.  It was a kind of ‘sacred cow’ at that time that everything revolved around the earth…to succeed and stay respectable, one had to go with the flow.

What much fewer people know and believe is that a similar phenomenon (but in reverse) is taking place in our free and enlightened 21st century society.  Only today the sacred cow is Darwinism.  If you dare to question it and try to publish something that undermines this theory – you will end up being a ‘heretic.’ 

To be sure – it is a new kind of heretic.  It is not one that will have to fear the excommunication of the church, but one that will have to fear EXPULSION from the “tolerant and loving” academic community.

Tolerant and loving if you do not touch their sacred cows – in this case the theory of evolution.  Well – a new movie is coming out which documents this development.

More information about this movie is given below (and the link to the trailer of the movie).  It will surprise you.  And if you happen to question evolution – prepare to be “excommunicated”.  Only this time is not the church, it is the academic clergy.

The movie is called EXPELLED (it may as well be Excommunicated) and it will be in theaters accross America starting Friday, April 18th. 

“With many interviews with leading atheist scientists and other prominent scientists who have dared to question Darwinism, this superb film is very revealing about how truth is being suppressed by an atheistic scientific establishment and how prominent scientists are being seriously persecuted for simply questioning Darwinism.  No young-earth creationists are in the film and it does not support that view.  But the film powerfully shows that our culture (indeed the whole world) is being massively brainwashed.
 
The star of and man behind the movie is Ben Stein, who is Jewish and not a Christian.  He is a writer, economist, former presidential speech writer and comedian.  He is making a bold move in doing this film, which exposes the overwhelming bias in the academic scientific community against belief in intelligent design.  With great insight it likens what is going on with the suppression of truth and free inquiry in science to the building of the Berlin Wall by the communists.  Besides seeing this yourself, I strongly encourage you to get the word out about this riveting film.” – Terry Mortenson
 
You can find out more about it by going to http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php.

25 responses

  1. onein6billion

    You are very late to the anti-science party.

    February 25, 2008 at 8:17 am

  2. onein6billion

    “But the film powerfully shows that our culture (indeed the whole world) is being massively brainwashed.”

    And, of course, that’s a lie.

    February 25, 2008 at 8:18 am

  3. Why would you say that onein6billion?
    I was actually COMPUTER SCIENCE – and I like SCIENCE in general…

    I will tell you a couple of reasons why I have problems with evolution – maybe you can help me out on this.

    1)
    National Geographic (hardly an anti-science journal) reported (I can look it up to tell you the exact number if you want) that out of 1000 links/species in the evolutionary model, 999 are missing. Now – that to ME does not sound like science – when I am missing 999 out of 1000, that sounds to me more like sci-fi. What do you think?

    2) It is very very difficult for me to understand how such a wonderful universe came by chance – without an intelligence behind it. Let me tell you why. Since the best scientists in the world (most intelligent and resourceful) CANNOT create even one simple living cell, how can I believe (and think that this makes sense = is rational = is scientific) that such complexity can be created by CHANCE – without any intelligence?

    Aren’t these legitimate questions and concerns?

    And if I am wrong (and Ben Stein and others) – WHY the INSECURITY of the establishment when they are being challenged? The more certain I am of something – the less I care if someone challenges me and my position.

    February 27, 2008 at 5:45 am

  4. onein6billion

    “when I am missing 999 out of 1000”

    Please estimate how many species of reptiles existed between 220 million years ago and 65 million years ago (when an asteroid help to wipe them out and allowed mammals to take over the Earth)? Then estimate how many individual reptiles existed during that time span. Then count how many actual bones/skeletons have been found and how many have been identified as separate species.

    Only one in a billion? individual animals have been found as a fossil. Yes, it’s certainly possible that many “missing links” have never been found. But remember, whenever a “missing link” fills a gap, it creates two new “missing links” on both sides of the “gap”! But the gaps keep getting smaller. For some mammal species, the gaps are getting quite small. Of course most of the current species on Earth are beetles. Very few fossil beetles! (in amber?)

    Google “tiktaalik”. It was predicted and then found! All land animals are descendants of tiktaalik! Not to mention whales.

    “universe came by chance”

    That the Big Bang occurred about 14 billion years ago is an obvious fact.

    “CANNOT create even one simple living cell”

    A single living cell – the result of a few hundred million years of evolution – is incredibly complex. But an argument from incredulity does not carry much weight.

    A virus is much simpler. Maybe scientists will create one of these one of these years.

    “that such complexity can be created by CHANCE”

    Such complexity is created by evolution, not chance. Mutation is part of the process, but there are other parts of the process. And natural selection often means that a more complex organism has a better survival rate than a less complex organism.

    “INSECURITY of the establishment when they are being challenged?”

    “Insecurity” is not correct. The scientific establishment is not being challenged by anything scientific. ID can never be scientific. This is a political dispute over “hearts and minds”. ID = creationism is basically lying when they claim to be scientific or they claim to want to “teach the controversy”. They have not come up with a new idea in 20+ years. They have lost in the US Federal Courts due to “separation of church and state” because they are always shown to be religious.

    This movie does not even try to hide the religious theme. Mainly Christian organizations have been invited to the pre-screenings. They offered money to Christian schools for coming to see the movie on the opening weekend.

    “the less I care if someone challenges me”

    And when the religious right on the (elected) Texas School Board (not to mention Florida) tries to rewrite the state biology standards to “teach the controversy”, then maybe scientists really should care. Oh dear, maybe it’s already too late. But two creationists backed by a millionaire were defeated in the Texas primary a month ago. So maybe it’s not too late. But the governor appointed a creationist as chairman of the Texas School Board. Maybe it is too late. Politically, we are being challenged.

    April 3, 2008 at 5:21 am

  5. Onein6billion – thanks a lot for your patience and willingness to teach and inform me on this subject. You do know a lot more than me about evolution.

    I do not have the time right now – but I hope to get back to you soon. I will just make one or two points.

    You are right that a cell is very complex. Of course – a human being is much more complex. Many scientits will one day create this cell/life. I doubt it.

    But even if they do – that just underscores my point that life/intelligence is created by living/intelligent beings.

    My point is – it is beyond “incredible” (for most people) to believe that matter can create life and intelligence (and ultimately – it seems to me unprovable). All you may be able to prove – is that intelligent beings (humans) can create and direct life.

    P.S. Even if human beings do create life – they usually start with something (some chemical substance etc). They do not start ex-nihilo.

    April 4, 2008 at 1:26 am

  6. onein6billion

    “But even if they do – that just underscores my point that life/intelligence is created by living/intelligent beings.”

    Hilarious.

    First you claim evolution is wrong because humans cannot create life (yet). Then you claim evolution is wrong because “only intelligence” can create life. Please make up your mind!

    “Even if human beings do create life – they usually start with something.”

    Starting with something instead of nothing is a really good idea! It’s a good thing we have a universe of something to start with!

    Of course the interesting hypothesis (popularized a few decades ago by Carl Sagan) is that after the Big Bang, almost all of the matter was hydrogen and helium. This would make “starting life” really difficult. But then supernovas blow up and the heavier elements that are created before and during that explosion are blasted out into the galaxy. So all of the iron and magnesium and carbon and oxygen etc. in your body were once inside of a star that became a supernova. Astronomers now consider this a “fact”.

    8 minute video from Cosmos:

    Astronomers have now found over 250 planets around other stars.

    April 4, 2008 at 6:15 am

  7. Onein6billion:

    I do not think that I said that evolution is wrong because humans cannot create life. I did say (and I believe) that it requires a lot of faith (more than religion) to believe that out of nothing (or out of hyrdogen and helium etc) came the wonderful and complex universe that we have now WITHOUT an intelligent mind behind it. BECAUSE – since intelligent human minds (like you) cannot create even 1 cell with material provided, it is hard to believe that matter (because in your theory there is only matter in the beginning – right? Where this comes from is another question) somewhat produced what we see now. In fact – for me (and for many other Americans) this seems simply incredible.

    Onein6billion – I appreciate very much that you engage with me and that you are very patient (since u seem to know a lot more than me in this regard). However – please understand me that this is hard to believe.

    You also say: “Starting with something instead of nothing is a really good idea! It’s a good thing we have a universe of something to start with!” Indeed – but WHERE is this universe coming from?? Who created it? It was just there?

    Also – it is hard for me to understand how you can make a statement as the following:

    “That the Big Bang occurred about 14 billion years ago is an obvious fact.”

    Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t. It just escapes me how astronomers (or any other scientist) thinks that he can figure out what was in the universe 14 billion years ago, when most of us cannot solve a crime that occured 10 years ago, or we do not have access to certain things that occurred 3000 years ago…

    I’ll try to get back to you. Thanks again for your participation and comments.

    April 4, 2008 at 7:11 am

  8. onein6billion

    “for me (and for many other Americans) this seems simply incredible”

    That’s why creationism is so appealing – it appeals to your common sense. Well, common sense may be common, but it’s not always scientifically correct. So there are 2 theories – one is that life arose from non-life over a billion years – the other is that life gradually evolved to be more and more complex over a few billion years. So they are related in some sense. But the theory of evolution is verified in many fundamentally different ways. So it’s obviously true. It’s easy to come up with theories about how life could have come from non-life. But there are very few good ways to test those theories. One scientist left some organic but non-living material stored in some deep freezers for 25 years. The material seems to have more complex molecules after 25 years. See the February issue of Discover magazine. So the theory is that the gradual freezing process removed some water and “forced” the organic matter “closer together” and that created more complex organic matter. But it’s still a very long way from “life”. But the definition of “life” is quite tricky. One definition is that something “reproduces itself”. That definition might fit entities that are much, much simpler than a “living cell”. One might speculate that another few hundred million years elapsed between “replicating molecules” and something almost as complicated as a virus (still much simpler than a living single-celled organism).

    So you can wave your hands and say “that’s impossible” or “I can’t believe it”, but it will be very difficult for you to “prove” that it did not happen. (Proving a negative is always difficult in science.)

    “he can figure out what was in the universe 14 billion years ago”

    He makes a lot (not just 1 or 2) of fundamentally DIFFERENT observations and compares them to the theory that a Big Bang occurred about 14 billion years ago and concludes that it’s an obviously true fact. Just go ask an astronomer. (but don’t ask about “dark matter” and “dark energy” – oh no!)

    Kind of like the theory of gravity, electromagnetic theory, nuclear theory (QUARKS??? nobody has ever seen a quark), and the theory of evolution to name a few. We’ve come a long way in the last hundred years – it was about 100 years ago that Hubble discovered that galaxies were millions of light years away. How far can we go in the next hundred or the next thousand years? Read some science fiction? When might it become science fact?

    “WHERE is this universe coming from?”

    Needless-to-say, theories about what might have “existed” before the Big Bang are very speculative. So yes, before the Big Bang there was no universe at all?? but after the Big Bang there was this universe that we now live in.

    “most of us cannot solve a crime that occurred 10 years ago”

    Fortunately, the fundamental physics of the universe is not all that complicated. Astronomers observe electro-magnetic radiation from gamma-rays to light to radio waves and they observe cosmic ray particles of high energy and many particles of lower energy. It’s merely physics! But human beings are much, much more complex than mere physics! They have emotions! They don’t follow laws! 🙂

    April 5, 2008 at 1:57 am

  9. Onein6billion – again, thanks for engaging and I appreciate your comments.

    Indeed – much of my thinking IS based on common sense and that is why is appealing.

    HOWEVER – if you indeed proved to me that you can produce LIFE from matter, I would throw my common sense out the window. BUT – you cannot prove that, and let me suggest that you will NEVER prove that. Because LIFE just does not come from matter. It is that simple. Life can only come from life.

    I agree with your point about the age of the universe. That is probably true.

    Though – in all of these cases, WE WERE NOT THERE. We are speculating based on the data that we have now and the conditions that we have now. What if something the environment was different 50,000 years ago, etc? I do not know – I am guessing.

    Personally I am surprised how you can make statement like the following:

    “But the theory of evolution is verified in many fundamentally different ways. So it’s obviously true.”

    The orgin of life (and the existence of God) cannot (at least has not been) be proved. They have to do with philosophy and religion.

    I recommend that you watch this clip, where the head of some Evolution dept from McGill admits that many things are not known and understood. You may disagree with the YEC, and he is weak on the date of the earth (skip the first part if you can), but on the other issues he wins the debate easily:

    P.S. I respect if you say that evolution is a very solid theory given all the data etc. I can see that. However – I disagree with the people who call it a fact, and who say that it is pure science. Science deals with observable and repeatable (and falsifiable) experiments. At this point – that is not the case with evolution. Indeed – it is impossible to prove it, because usually the millions of years duration is involved. All evolution can show in a lab is that there are mutations etc (most of them are harmful). I am not aware of any mutation that ADDS info and there are some other problems.

    Blessings,
    Chris

    April 8, 2008 at 7:59 am

  10. onein6billion

    “I disagree with the people who call it a fact.”

    When scientific theories have withstood decades of time and hundreds of tests, scientists call them “facts”. Gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, plate tectonics, evolution. Your disagreement is with 100,000 scientists.

    “he wins the debate easily”

    Evolution has not been a scientific debate in the last 100 years. One of these guys is not really a scientist – maybe he’s a computer programmer with no background in biology making a silly “information” argument.

    April 8, 2008 at 1:21 pm

  11. Please don’t make an argument from numbers…Galileo was vastly outnumbered when he said that the earth was not flat :):)

    My point is that MOST of evolution is NOT testable because it is supposed to take millions of years. And the start of evolution is completely NOT testable and NOT observable. I am sorry – I just do not see all this evidence (see my point below).

    You are right – that guy is a Computer guy (though he has an MA in Earth Science? from McGill) and that makes the debate much worse for the evolutionist. Because the evolutionist is the head of some Evolution Dept at McGill (=Harvard of Canada) and he has no answers to most of this guy’s questions. Now – when you do not have answers to some of the most basic questions, and a Computer programmer wins the debate – that is a serious problem for the theory. Don’t u think so?

    This is what bugs me most of the times when evolution is discussed (see the start of the clip). Instead of discussing the evidence and the issues, the evolutionist starts by saying that he really should not be there, because this guy should not be taken seriously, nobody does etc…And when they discuss some real issues and specifics, it is the evolutionist who has no answers…Some of his answers were similar to the ones you give: everyone believes, the evidence is so much etc…But when he was asked about specifics he seemed very uncomfortable (and this is the head of the Evolution Dept debating a computer guy) and when he gave some of the evidence and was challenged, he could not really respond.

    Look – I do think that the theory of evolution has a lot to be said in its favor, and there is much evidence to support it. However – I do not believe that it can explain the BEGINNING of LIFE (where life comes from – something that even Dawkins admits), and it cannot explain the leaps from one specie to another (it can explain only what I call MICROEVOLUTION). I may be wrong – but until I see the evidence – I refuse to believe.

    I hope that you understand me. In any case – I appreciate again for engaging. Most would have said – you are an idiot etc.

    (Maybe you feel like saying that too – but you know that I can moderate the message :):).

    P.S. Even if evolution is true, there is nothing that can convince me of MATERIALISTIC evolution. For (as I said before) – even if man creates life – that only proves that INTELLIGENCE (yes – I assume that the scientists are brilliant :)) can create life given the correct conditions.

    P.S. How is this for an argument from numbers? It seems like most Americans do NOT believe in evolution – despite decades of teaching ONLY this theory in most schools :):)

    Many blessings,
    Chris

    April 8, 2008 at 2:01 pm

  12. onein6billion

    “Please don’t make an argument from numbers.”

    If you are going to express “disagreement”, I’m going to point out that those you disagree with have a lot of knowledge about the subject in question.

    “Galileo was vastly outnumbered when he said that the earth was not flat.”

    I doubt it. Columbus discovered the New World a century before that time. But Galileo used his telescope to spot the moons going around Jupiter and the Church was not happy that he agreed with Copernicus that the Earth goes around the sun.

    “My point is that MOST of evolution is NOT testable.”

    Ok, I’ll bite – tell me a single “point” of evolution that is not properly tested.

    “because it is supposed to take millions of years”

    So we have to ask – what would a “test” look like? Would fossils at one layer look only slightly different from fossils at the layers above or below? That is what evolution would predict and that is what is observed. So, yes, the fossils from different dates differ from each other in a way which is compatible with evolution. So evolution passes this “test”.

    “He has no answers to most of this guy’s questions.”

    The correct answer is “Your question is crazy” in most cases I’m sure.

    “because this guy should not be taken seriously”

    Yep – the problem is that 99% of the time this is an accurate statement of reality.
    I quit listening to the “debate” after 15 seconds.

    “when he gave some of the evidence and was challenged”

    Yes, that is a problem with a “debate”. It’s so easy to “challenge” something and it takes 10 minutes and the proper references to oppose the “challenge”. And if the “challenge” is completely bogus, …

    “I do not believe that it can explain the BEGINNING of LIFE”

    I agree – evolution explains how life changed after it began. Obviously life “began” and then obviously it evolved. The “explanation” of how life began is called “abiogenesis” and it’s very speculative. “You weren’t there”🙂 is a little more correct for 3 billion years ago. And there’s no “fossil record”. There’s just the apparently obvious observation that the DNA of all life on Earth seems to be related. So quite possibly life began only once on this Earth.

    “it cannot explain the leaps from one species to another”

    You have purchased one of the creationists’ bogus claims. There are no such “leaps”, so evolution explains the fossil evidence very well. And Tiktaalik was predicted.

    “there is nothing that can convince me of MATERIALISTIC evolution”

    First we would need a proper definition of “materialistic evolution”. Then we could discuss this. Of course the theory of evolution requires “genetic variation” and some of that variation must be due to mutations of the genes. And mutations could be construed to require that dreaded word “chance”. Well, I’ve been on this Earth for 66 years and I have a few stories about “chance”.

    “It seems like most Americans do NOT believe in evolution.”

    It seems that most Americans are not scientists.

    “despite decades of teaching ONLY this theory in most schools”

    Actually many high schools don’t teach evolution – it’s the last chapter in the 9th grade biology book and the teacher “runs out of time” before she gets to it.

    And “anti-evolution” is taught in a large number of churches. So if you are religious, …

    “Many blessings”

    It might seem that you are. What is a “blessing”? Someone takes advantage of an opportunity through his own hard work? Or manna falls from heaven? Do you want responsibility for your own successes and failures? Or …

    April 9, 2008 at 1:42 am

  13. I am busy – I will try to get back to you later. I will just give you some objections.

    1) You cannot explain the origin of life through evolution. Thanks for admiting that. This is a major problem for naturalistic evolution to begin with. BUT – it is good that you admit. I understand that many evolution books (though I have not read ANY recently) give the false impression that evolution can explain this too.

    2) What is the evidence for EVOLUTION from a specie to another? What is the FOSSIL evidence for this??? I do not think that it exists – but feel free to prove me wrong.

    3) Do you have any evidence of a mutation that ADDS information? Because (as you well know) that is important to explain the appearance of certain species. Please offer it.

    4) Why did u quit listening to the clip after 15 seconds? It is not clear to me from your message. The guy poses some questions that you want me to pose. He just does it better because he is more informed.

    I doubt that most high schools do not get to evolution. I doubt that most churches teach anti-evolution, but I could be wrong.
    Despite popular belief (?) many churches do not directly address this issue (and I have been going to church for a while :):).

    P.S. A blessings is something good that God gives to people whether they believe in God or not. I am sure you are blessed too :):)
    May God bless you!

    April 10, 2008 at 4:35 am

  14. Here are some quotes from your fellow evolutionists (they believe in it) which raise some serious questions for people like me:

    Philip Kitcher, a philosopher of science and committed Darwinian, confesses in his book, Living with Darwin, that if Darwinians “were to try experimenting on the natural selection of organisms with relatively long generation times it would take the lives of thousands of successive investigators to provide even the slightest chance of even the first steps toward experimental success.” Living with Darwin, it turns out, takes a lot more commitment than most people realize.

    Now a context for the quote from a fellow evolutionist:

    They want something much grander, a detailed study showing natural selection “transumting” one “kind” into another — giving an amphibian from a fish, or a bird from a reptile, for example.
    Nobody can answer that demand. From a Darwinian perspective, however, that isn’t because the theory of natural selection is seriously flawed, but because the demand is absurdly naive. Biologists have measured mutation rates. They know that favorable variations arise by mutation quite rarely, and that, if they were to try experimenting on the natural selection of organisms with relatively long generation times, it would take the lives of thousands of successive investigators to provide even the slightest chance of even the first steps toward experimental success. They know that the Earth is ancient, that geological time has offered far more opportunities for evolutionary “experiments” than successive generations of human beings could manage. (pp. 80-81).”

    Notice the part: NOBODY CAN ANSWER THAT DEMAND. Of course – he goes on to say that it is an absurdly naive. Well – it looks like it is naive because you need millions of years to show that. I understand. BUT – that just proves that EVOLUTION has not been and cannot be observed and proved/tested in a lab. Precisely because of the very very long time that is involved.

    Now to me – this is a way to COPE with lack of evidence and lack of possibility to TEST. Well – we cannot test it because “it would take the lives of thousands of successive investigators to provide even the slightest chance of even the first steps toward experimental success…”

    Then- how can you say that evolution has been proved and tested? That is something that I CANNOT undersand. That it is an elegant theory that is very probable I can accept – but I do not see how it has been tested and proved, when you actually cannot test and prove and OBSERVE most of it!!! So you need FAITH! Yes – I used the F word. You need it for evolution too. It would be nice to admit. Don’t you think so?

    Here is one more quote from another fellow evolutionist – which obviously does NOT inspire much FAITH (at least not in me):

    Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature, wrote in 1999: “The intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.” Although Gee is a believer in Darwin’s theory, he acknowledged that one must assume the truth of the theory when studying human origins, because by its very nature the fossil record cannot corroborate it. Gee concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story–amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

    Blessings,
    Chris

    April 10, 2008 at 4:52 am

  15. onein6billion

    “You cannot explain the origin of life through evolution.”

    Irrelevant.

    “What is the FOSSIL evidence for this? I do not think that it exists”

    Your opinion on this question is incorrect.

    “Do you have any evidence of a mutation that ADDS information?”

    Of course. It would seem that you have fallen for yet another stupid creationist “argument”.

    “Why did u quit listening to the clip after 15 seconds?”

    Because he used the word “information” – a sure clue he is clueless about evolution and wishes to make a naive and stupid creationist argument.

    “A blessings is something good that God gives to people”

    And how would I recognize one when I saw it? Does it come with a label? I’ve gotten a few hundred heart-felt “thank yous” in the last 11 weeks. Can I change my name tag to “God’s blessing”? Or am I still a “mere mortal”?

    “the lives of thousands of successive investigators”

    In other words – a long time. Agreed. And irrelevant.

    “the demand is absurdly naive”

    And thus the demand is irrelevant.

    “EVOLUTION has not been and cannot be observed and proved/tested in a lab.”

    Agreed and irrelevant.

    “how can you say that evolution has been proved and tested?”

    How does one convict a criminal? You show means (weapon), presence (opportunity), and motive. Evolution has the means (genetic variation). Evolution has taken place over the last few billions of years (presence/opportunity). And evolution has the “motive” – an evolved entity that fits its environment better is more likely to survive and produce offspring. All of the evidence fits. GUILTY!

    “So you need FAITH!”

    Yes and no. Sometimes juries convict an innocent man. They had faith that the prosecutor and witnesses were not lying. They had faith that the defense attorney did a good job. They had faith that the JURY SYSTEM WORKS. Scientists have “faith” that the SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS. Because 99% of the time it does. And when a scientific theory is not quite right, it’s a scientist that figures that out and replaces it with a better scientific theory. Do you have a better scientific theory? Hint – ID is not a scientific theory.

    “science writer”

    Everyone has an opinion – even a silly “writer”. But it seems he is not a real scientist.

    “we cannot say anything definite”

    How “definite” does “definite” really need to be? Find a “new” fossil and what used to be “pretty definite” becomes more or less “definite”. But they predicted Tiktaalik. That’s a pretty definite prediction.

    “assume the truth of the theory when studying human origins”

    Maybe this writer’s opinion was not completely incorrect 9 years ago. There have been more discoveries of human origins since then. But “human origins” is a very tiny, tiny (important to religious people?) part of evolution. So yes, evolution is obviously true from many other lines of (fossil and other) evidence. So it obviously applies to human origins. So it’s just a matter of trying to work out the exact details. And there was a new discovery in the news last week and the details continue to be worked out (and argued about by the scientists). But even if the fossil evidence is fragmentary, the genetic evidence is very clear. Humans did evolve from a “common ancestor” to what we now call “other primates”. Note the chromosome evidence as well.

    “an assertion that carries the same validity …”

    This person’s opinion is incorrect. He is not a scientist. I do not accept him as an authority.

    April 10, 2008 at 11:54 am

  16. Oneinabillion. What is your first name – if you do not mind? I do not want to refer to you as onein6billion. My first name is Chris.

    I am sorry for the delay. I will try to get back to you early next week.

    Meanwhile – let’s agree to disagree:):)

    Here is Wittgenstein (On Certainty):

    But what men consider reasonable or unreasonable alters…VERY intelligent and well-educated people believe in the story of creation in the Bible, while others hold it as proven false, and the grounds of the latter are well known to the former.”

    April 12, 2008 at 3:39 pm

  17. onein6billion

    “VERY intelligent and well-educated people believe in the story of creation in the Bible”

    Very intelligent people can be well-educated in some subjects and completely clueless in other subjects.

    W F Buckley (may he rest in peace) apparently considered that evolution was incorrect because he once had a “debate” on his Firing Line show (ran on PBS for 20+ years) and he thought the anti-evolution person “won” the debate. But there is no debate among biological scientists on this subject.

    My name is Mike.

    April 13, 2008 at 1:35 am

  18. Dear Mark,

    Thanks again for engaging. I will try to continue the conversation.

    [You cannot explain the origin of life through evolution.”

    Irrelevant.]

    Mark – this is NOT irrelevant. In fact this is the most relevant thing for me. For frankly I do not care so much HOW I have become what I am, whether it is through evolution or in some other way. It is more important the WHO and WHY!!! Science cannot answer these questions. It can only tell us HOW. Now – even if evolution is true – that does not necessarily exclude God. There are many theistic evolutionists (perhaps the most famous is Francis Collins – a very well informed scientist).

    [“What is the FOSSIL evidence for this? I do not think that it exists”

    Your opinion on this question is incorrect.]

    This is told to me many times. Maybe you are correct (we are well educated in some subjects but completely clueless in other). I am the first to admit that I have not researched this subject in any detail. But the quotes that I gave you above (and which come from fellow believers in evolution) do not inspire much trust. However – I would be happy if you could give me some links or material that spells the evidence for me. Thanks.

    [“Do you have any evidence of a mutation that ADDS information?”

    Of course. It would seem that you have fallen for yet another stupid creationist “argument”.]

    Of course? Again – could you please point me to a few experiments which have shown that this is possible? Thanks.

    [“Why did u quit listening to the clip after 15 seconds?”

    Because he used the word “information” – a sure clue he is clueless about evolution and wishes to make a naive and stupid creationist argument.]

    Why is it stupid? Where does the information come from? Is the DNA programming itself? If I told you that your computer programmed itself you would say that I am insane.

    [“A blessings is something good that God gives to people”

    And how would I recognize one when I saw it? Does it come with a label? I’ve gotten a few hundred heart-felt “thank yous” in the last 11 weeks. Can I change my name tag to “God’s blessing”? Or am I still a “mere mortal”?]

    Ha – you have a sense of humor. NO – they do not come with a label. But from ‘talking’ to you I can tell that you are blessed with a sharp mind and a good heart. Look – I am not going to argue the concept of blessing with you…clearly you do not believe in God and you do not seem to need him. What to some is a great blessing and miracle, to others is just a mechanical fact of life…I will give you a poem that I like:

    Earth’s crammed with wonder, and every common bush aflame with God. But only he who sees takes of his shoes. The rest sit’round it and pluck blackberries!🙂

    [“the lives of thousands of successive investigators”

    In other words – a long time. Agreed. And irrelevant.

    “the demand is absurdly naive”

    And thus the demand is irrelevant.]

    Why is this an irrelevant demand?? This is exacly what evolution asserts, that there is a leap from a species to another. But this is something that it cannot prove. I understand why the demand can be called “naive” – because in your theory things take millions of years and thus it is not possible to observe. BUT that is the problem – it cannot be proved, observed, experimented. And isn’t this what science is about?

    [“EVOLUTION has not been and cannot be observed and proved/tested in a lab.”

    Agreed and irrelevant.]

    Why is this irrelevant? Most evolutionists say two things: it is a fact and it is science. But science works with observations and experiments. At least that is what most dictionaries give in their definitions about science.

    [“how can you say that evolution has been proved and tested?”

    How does one convict a criminal? You show means (weapon), presence (opportunity), and motive. Evolution has the means (genetic variation). Evolution has taken place over the last few billions of years (presence/opportunity). And evolution has the “motive” – an evolved entity that fits its environment better is more likely to survive and produce offspring. All of the evidence fits. GUILTY!]

    Thank you very much!!! You have come a long way Mark. Now here I agree with you. However – this is NOT science anymnore and (as you say below) you need some faith, especially if the evidence is flimsy. Now – you believe that the evidence for ‘conviction’ is very good, the pieces all fit together etc. You may be right on this. As I said – I have not seen the evidence to convince me that “this guy is guilty.” All of the evidence fits? Maybe you are right – I simply do not know and I haven’t seen this evidence. However – I would like to take a look at it.

    [“So you need FAITH!”

    Yes and no. Sometimes juries convict an innocent man. They had faith that the prosecutor and witnesses were not lying. They had faith that the defense attorney did a good job. They had faith that the JURY SYSTEM WORKS. Scientists have “faith” that the SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS. Because 99% of the time it does. And when a scientific theory is not quite right, it’s a scientist that figures that out and replaces it with a better scientific theory. Do you have a better scientific theory? Hint – ID is not a scientific theory.]

    YES Mark. No yes and no. You do need faith. Mark – I do not pretend that I have a better scientific theory and I am not one of those who wants creationism to be taught in Science classes. At least not in science classes where science is defined as a naturalistic explanation of how things work (this definition excluded God from the start). Frankly – I do not need another scientific explanation. I BELIEVE that God created heaven and earth. This has been the confession of the Church (and Judaims) from the beginning. No confession has added in how many days, in what way etc…To me that problem is NOT that important and it has not been throughout the history of the Church. My version of creation certainly belongs to the Religion/Theology/Philosophy classroom.

    [“science writer”

    Everyone has an opinion – even a silly “writer”. But it seems he is not a real scientist.

    “we cannot say anything definite”

    How “definite” does “definite” really need to be? Find a “new” fossil and what used to be “pretty definite” becomes more or less “definite”.]

    The writer that I quoted published in Nature magazine (right?) and that is a leading scientific magazine. It was written by an evolutionist. Could he be wrong? Of course. Still – if they publish someone with this kind of doubts- that does not inspire much confidence in the theory. At least not for an outsider like me.

    [But they predicted Tiktaalik. That’s a pretty definite prediction.]

    You keep mentioning this Tiktaalik. I promise that I will take a look at it!!!

    [“assume the truth of the theory when studying human origins”

    Maybe this writer’s opinion was not completely incorrect 9 years ago. There have been more discoveries of human origins since then. But “human origins” is a very tiny, tiny (important to religious people?) part of evolution. So yes, evolution is obviously true from many other lines of (fossil and other) evidence. So it obviously applies to human origins. So it’s just a matter of trying to work out the exact details. And there was a new discovery in the news last week and the details continue to be worked out (and argued about by the scientists). But even if the fossil evidence is fragmentary, the genetic evidence is very clear. Humans did evolve from a “common ancestor” to what we now call “other primates”. Note the chromosome evidence as well.]

    I understand that this is the strongest evidence – the genetic one. I will have to look into this. However, it depends again how you interpret the data. Here are two “genetic codes” almost identical but which convey totally different information:

    GOD IS NOWWHERE.

    GOD is NOW HERE.

    I can intepret the similarity of code as having to do with the same designer (writer). If I design a factory of robots. Many of them may have esentially the same program with small differences. But those are DESIGNED – they did not necessarily evolve.

    [“an assertion that carries the same validity …”

    This person’s opinion is incorrect. He is not a scientist. I do not accept him as an authority.]

    You do not accept him because he disagrees with your theory. However – Henry Gee is an evolutionist (chief writer for Nature) who believes in this theory. Of course – he may be incorrect. But – for a person from the outside – reading this kind of stuff does not inspire much faith in this theory. I hope that you understand me.

    Mark – you surprise me how interested you are to convince me of this theory. You are almost “missionary.” Frankly – you put me to shame!!

    Because I am the one who should be more zealous to convince YOU. Because if you are right and I am wrong – who CARES??? Since I come from nothing and I am going into nothingness – who cares how/when/why I am here on earth?? I would not very much – to be honest with you.

    However – if I am right, if there is a God out there (as I strongly BELIEVE) who revealed Himself in the Bible, then you are lost and are going to hell (an eternity without the God who blesses you today and gives you life and joy and intelligence)!!!

    Again – you may be right about evolution. I mean that you may be right that God created the universe through evolution (in fact the Bible partially supports this idea; God says: ‘let the earth bring forth…’; at the same time it makes it clear that God is the One who creates and directs the process, so the Bible could be used and has been used to support theistic evolution. I am not convinced).

    Of course – I do not believe for a second that the origin of life and the universe can be explained through purely naturalistic means. You also admit (even Dawkins does) that you cannot explain the origin of life.

    I wish that we could talk over a coffee sometimes. Where do u live?

    Greetings,
    Chris

    April 15, 2008 at 2:28 pm

  19. onein6billion

    Yes, I am a missionary. I have posted my negative comments about Expelled on more than 50 different blogs in the last couple of months.

    You started this topic with:

    “To be sure – it is a new kind of heretic. It is not one that will have to fear the excommunication of the church, but one that will have to fear EXPULSION from the “tolerant and loving” academic community.”

    If this statement and the entire movie are all lies, then why shouldn’t I spend a little time trying to counter these lies with the truth.

    “which exposes the overwhelming bias in the academic scientific community against belief in intelligent design.”

    Exactly right. “Intelligent design” (whatever that means) is religious and this movie is apparently rather explicitly religious and the academic scientific community is very biased against a claim that a religious explanation is better than the scientific theory of evolution.

    And “Darwin led to Hitler” (30+ minutes in the film?) is particularly erroneously horrible revisionist history.

    “Where does the information come from?”

    I replied to this in one way on the following blog:

    http://dangoldfinch.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/ben-stein-evolution-film/

    Of course the owner of that blog completely rejected my scientific explanation.

    Fundamentally, the theory of abiogenesis is based on “self-organizing” capabilities of certain organic molecules. This allows the creation of life from non-life.

    Then the theory of evolution allows increasing complexity as mutations have a chance of producing an increase in fitness of the child compared to the parent.

    Genetic information can be increased in other ways – especially sexual reproduction. Each parent might have something “latent” in its genes – but when the offspring has the combined genes of its parents, the latent capability might become “expressed” and the offspring might thereby be more (or less) fit for survival than its parents. Or just plain different. Chihuahuas and Dobermans are “still just dogs”.

    Another possibility is “incorrect replication” when DNA in the cell replicates to create two cells instead of one. Apparently some genetic diseases are caused by this kind of error.

    “It is more important the WHO and WHY!!! Science cannot answer these questions.”

    Yes, trying to answer the “who” and “why” about the creation of the universe and the creation of life on this Earth seems to be something that science may never answer. It does not seem to be a scientific question. So you are quite free to make up a non-scientific answer. But, of course, the next question becomes “why is the answer to this “why” question so important?” One is not allowed to live and love without knowing the answer to this question?

    I live in Austin, Texas.

    April 16, 2008 at 12:54 pm

  20. onein6billion

    Expelled Exposed is now very informative:

    http://www.expelledexposed.com/

    April 16, 2008 at 9:30 pm

  21. Thanks Mark. I checked out the site a bit. You have to understand that this is one side of the story. Why would I believe their side and not the side of the people who actually lost their jobs etc…

    In any case – it is hard to make a decision on many of these issues unless you hear the evidence of both sides etc…I assume that both sides exaggerate their claims.

    I do think that you would agree with this statement (and I think this is one of the points Expelled is trying to make): if you question DARWINISM (not necessarily because you believe in ID etc) or you even suggest that there may be alternative explanations, your chances for advancement are going to be reduced regardless of how good a teacher and/or researcher you are.

    Can I prove this? Probably not. Because I do not care to prove this. However – I think that it is safe to say (as I said in my post) that DARWINISM is the new ‘sacred cow’ which cannot really be touched without losing something. Now – the comparison that you find many times between Darwinism and gravitation is clearly exaggerated and wrong.

    Gravity can be shown and experimented by thousands of experiments in a relatively short time. And if you teach a theory that challenges gravity – nobody will listen and you have no chance.

    However – if you teach something that challenges EVOLUTION – is a totally different story, because there are many people out there who are uncomfortable with this theory and are not convinced by it.

    Of course – this may be due to their ignorance (like Dawkins says, and he may be right; I disagree with his other options stupid/idiots because most of these people are not), then I think that teachers of evolution should do a better job in the classroom…

    April 18, 2008 at 12:27 pm

  22. onein6billion

    “hear the evidence of both sides”

    And it’s sure that Ben Stein is going to give you only one side.

    “suggest that there may be alternative explanations”

    You continue to leave out the word “scientific”. There are no scientific alternative explanations.

    “your chances for advancement are going to be reduced regardless of how good a teacher and/or researcher you are.”

    How is one to judge how good a researcher you are? By your results. Gonzalez did not show good enough results to be granted tenure. How is one to judge how good a teacher you are? Crocker taught nonsense instead of the required curriculum. So her contract was not renewed. There were no consequences against Sternberg.

    “‘sacred cow’ which cannot really be touched”

    Evolution is scientific. It can only be touched by something scientific. If you try to use creationist arguments, …

    “then I think that teachers of evolution should do a better job in the classroom…”

    Agreed. But in some senses it is a difficult subject. There is enough material in a 9th grade biology textbook for many years of study. So evolution is the last chapter and the teacher (in Texas) conveniently runs out of time before she gets to that last chapter. And that is the last chance for about 95% of the population to learn anything about evolution. So most people have never had any memorable education in evolution (except in church?).

    But the ones that go to a university and take biology do get a dose of evolution. Then they go back to their creationist parents and ask “Why did you lie to me?”.

    “a theory that challenges gravity”

    There was a satellite launched a few years ago at a cost of a few hundreds of millions of dollars to perform a test between two competing theories of gravity!

    The DNA genetics of evolution is just as compelling as an apple falling from a tree. And more compelling than “dark matter” and “dark energy”?

    So it’s really all about religion does not like this particular part of science.

    April 18, 2008 at 3:23 pm

  23. onein6billion

    And the AAAS agrees with me:

    http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2008/media/0418aaas_statement.pdf

    April 21, 2008 at 11:16 pm

  24. I haven’t seen the movie – so I cannot really comment. If it is the way AAAS puts it – I agree with most of their assessments.

    April 22, 2008 at 10:01 am

  25. David Young

    Here is what evolution has in its favour:
    Evidence.

    Here is what the creationist camp has in its favour:
    A willingness to misrepresent science.
    Lots of bright, shiny video effects.
    An audience who have no interest whatsoever in checking even one claim made by a creationist to see if it either accurately reflects what evolution is or whether there is in fact a reply to it that an evolutionary biologist has made.
    Some people who are famous.
    Some people who have studied areas of science unrelated to evolutionary biology but are legitimately entitled to put “Dr” in front of their names.

    You could fill a hard disc with sentences that start ‘Here’s what I don’t understand about evolution:…’. That would be no match for one argument in favour of evolution which stands up to closer investigation. At least, it would be no match for it if you were talking about ascertaining what the truth is. If you are talking about convincing an audience, that’s a whole new ball game.

    If I used the same dishonesty as the creationists, here is what my description of Christianity would be:

    “Christianity is the belief that if you do not read the whole Bible, in English, every single week, you will go to Hell. Also, Christians have to crucify two thieves every Easter, otherwise they will not go to Paradise and be with Jesus.”

    Now suppose I had the resources of the creationists (e.g. I was a propaganda minister in Romania during the time of communism).

    When Christians take up the anti-evolution cause, there are certain regimes and ideologies that they are disqualified from criticising. The words ‘speck’, ‘plank’ and ‘eye’ spring to mind.

    September 24, 2012 at 10:49 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s