Rating:
4.5 out of 5
By Vic Holtreman
Short version: Your opinion of the film will with almost complete certainty be predicted by your opinions on Darwinism vs Intelligent Design.
Yes, I know everyone is looking for reviews of Morgan Spurlock’s Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden? Here’s a spoiler: He doesn’t find Osama. His movie is funny and entertaining, but I think this film will generate far more debate and discussion and is as relevant to what’s happening today as Spurlock’s movie.
Having said that, I believe that writing this review is almost a pointless exercise, but I’ll write it anyway. Why? Because your opinion of the film will with almost complete certainty be predicted by your opinions on Darwinism vs Intelligent Design.
I’ve been scouring a few sites looking to see what people thought of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and it is expectedly getting skewered. Rotten Tomatoes has it at 9% at the time of this writing and over at IMDB.com it’s sitting at 3.3/10. The interesting thing about the rating over at IMDB is that 88% of the votes are either a “1″ or a “10,” with very few in between. I’m guessing that most of the votes on the “1″ side are from people who haven’t even seen the film.
|
|
Much like the reviews and viewer opinions of Michael Moore’s psuedo-documentaries or Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” are influenced by whether the person in question agrees with the views espoused in those films, that will be the situation here in even more stark relief. Considering the fact that most reviewers over at RT loved those films, it’s no surprise to me that Ben Stein’s film was skewered.
I don’t blame anyone - it’s just about impossible to judge a documentary on a hot-button subject without bringing personal bias into it.
A couple of the eventual items that will be highlighted in the movie are hinted at with the opening credits, which are made up of what looks like old archival footage from World War II. The movie credits are blended in to look like they are part of the original footage, which I thought was kind of cool. Ben Stein walks onto the stage of a crowded auditorium to talk about the fact that no matter the era, freedom is the one constant that has defined America throughout its history.
From there he goes on to expand on his main point: No, it’s not that Intelligent Design theory is superior to Darwinism… but that the mere mention of I.D. by someone in an academic position can lead to not only denial of tenure, but to outright censure and loss of their position. You read that right: not the teaching of the theory - just the mention of it as a possible valid theory.
He interviews a number of academicians and scientists who have met the fates described above and cites what led to their firings, etc.. Stein also interviews those in institutes of higher learning that came pretty close to visibly spitting whenever they were questioned about the topic.
One of the things that has people up in arms about this film is that Ben Stein draws a connection between Darwinism and Nazi Germany. He says quite clearly that he is NOT implying that Darwinists are Nazis - only that Hitler was influenced by the theory and sought to “accelerate” human evolution by eliminating the weak, infirm and supposedly inferior races.
I understand Stein’s reason for including this in the film - more than one athiest in the film emphasized the belief in no ultimate moral standards. The logical conclusion from that is that due to the idea of moral relativism (”well, maybe that was considered bad 50 years ago but times have changed”) is that eventually we could go beyond abortion and voluntary euthanasia to selecting people to be euthanized “for the good of mankind/the human race/our country” with no guilt of sense of wrongdoing.
The problem here is that the idea of a “designed” universe is rejected out of hand, there IS no room for discussion (similar to the global warming debate). If someone disagrees they are shouted down with “idiot/ignorant/stupid” and of course, “creationist.” End of conversation.
As far as I’m concerned, the unadulterated hubris of those in academia in their 100% certainty that there is no God in a universe where so much is still unknown is for lack of another word, galling.
You’re either going to think that Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a huge disinformation campaign of a film and hate it, or you’re going to think that it’s a big eye opener when it comes to the current dangers to our freedom and the discussion of important issues.
On a final note, I’ll be monitoring the comments below carefully. I’ve said before that I have NO problem with people with opposing opinions as long as those opinions are stated in an intelligent and civil manner with no personal attacks. In any case, especially online, I’ve found these discussions pointless as no one is going to change anyone’s opinion on either side.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter. Thank you for visiting and we look forward to reading your comments!
Want to ask us a question? Contact us directly.
202 Comments
Wow… this is the most intelligent review of the film, I think, that anyone could have written. You are very right. (About the discussions, too.)
This is an absolutely excellent take on the nature of this film, and its purpose. Thank you for a rational, and honest appraisal.
“As far as I’m concerned, the unadulterated hubris of those in academia in their 100% certainty that there is no God in a universe where so much is still unknown is for lack of another word, galling.”
Science is bottom up, not top down. As a scientist I can say, as long as we stick to this principle I’m fine with any hypothesis you toss my way. REPEAT: Science is bottom up, NOT top down. You get NO unfalsifiable presuppositions in science. You support your hypothesis from the bottom up with evidence. Anything else is not science and should be taken with a grain of salt!
Demand evidence! Be VERY skeptical of those who offer you grand ideas without any basis in the real world! Make them produce repeatable, observable, testable evidence! So far the proponents of ID have come away lacking! Cheers!
Thanks very much for chiming in with your thoughts in a conversational manner.
Whether ID is right or not, even in science, one does not discount what MIGHT be out of hand, IMHO. It’s the old circular argument:
“Prove to me God exists.”
“No, you prove to me God doesn’t exist.”
As far as I know this will be a deadlocked argument until the end of time. Much like that classic Star Trek episode with the two guys trying to kill each other, one from our universe and the other from an anti-matter universe.
Vic
i enjoyed the Film .
I couldnt help but notice a lot of the alternative theories to ID not onlly had little
evidence to back them up .
they sounded more like science fiction then pure science .
From there he goes on to expand on his main point: No, it’s not that Intelligent Design theory is superior to Darwinism… but that the mere mention of I.D. by someone in an academic position can lead to not only denial of tenure, but to outright censure and loss of their position.
Vic, while Stein states this to be the case, it’s simply not what happened, in any example he puts forth.
I couldnt help but notice a lot of the alternative theories to ID not onlly had little
evidence to back them up .
The thing of it is, Gary, that ID has no evidence, and for that matter no theory, to support it.
It does what it sets out to do despite that I am completely against ID, it was still good.
Also, like Scientology, too many people believe it that don’t entirely understand what its about, and thats why I like this and agree with being able to teach it.
For instance I won’t shove Christianity down my children’s throats, but I also won’t keep them from learning about it and making their own choice about what they believe.
SPOLERS
the loudest opponent of ID was Richard
an evolutinary biologist Dawkins dawkins said that if ID existed it was a highly advanced alien race that seeded the earth with life .
Thats right a bioloogist a scientist who wont believe in an unproven god believes its more likely that it was unproven aliens instead.
We all come from a creator.
That I know. We all have Angels watching out for us.
I’m fairly confident that their is a god (creator).
We don’t need to worship so much as treat each other as equals and not inflict pain.
Just my opinion. And I’ve had a few beers.
There really isn’t any reason one should feel compelled to choose evolution or intelligent design at the expense of the other. One is a scientific theory that explains the ‘how’ and the other is a philosophical theory that takes a stab at explaining the ‘who’. The methods at arriving at these basic questions must be approached from different starting points and through different methods. As someone else mentioned, matters of faith require that you accept certain things as true that cannot be proven, while science demands that a theory be backed up with supporting evidence.
But these are not mutually exclusive domains. A Christian scientist may both believe in God and support the theory of evolution. One supports the “who” and “why”, the other the “how”. As it is, I would be fine with ID being taught in a class on philosophy, but I can understand why classes based on the use of the scientific method can make a good case as to why ID does not belong in those specific classes.
Are there holes in the theory of evolution? Yes, but there are also holes in Newton’s understanding in formulating his laws on gravity - only discovered through more recent discoveries on how gravity works. However, Newton’s theories are still taught. Why? Because they are accurate enough to be used in virtually all practical situations and they still corroborate to observable demonstrations. The presence of holes does not automatically sink a theory. Human scientific understanding consists mainly of the summary of the best of a set of the least flawed theories currently available. That’s how science needs to work as a discipline.
“The thing of it is, Gary, that ID has no evidence, and for that matter no theory, to support it.” - Jody
That’s why it’s called faith.
On the other hand, does macroevolution, or the “big bang” have any more evidence than ID? No, it doesn’t but they’re allowed to be called “theories”. So either let ID be a theory, or throw them all out and keep science out of it until there is evidence.
“just the mention of it as a possible valid theory.”
The problem I have is this: Intelligent Design has no evidence to support it, therefore it doesn’t meet the scientific definition of a theory. As such, it doesn’t belong in a science class. A philosophy class, sure. A social studies class, maybe. Not a science class.
Now, if its supporters can come up with testable evidence to support their position, I’m willing to consider a change in my position. Until then, though, it’s not science and has no place, in my opinion, in a class dedicated to science.
Beyond that, I don’t care one way or the other what people believe regarding human origins.
Vic:
“Prove to me God exists.”
“No, you prove to me God doesn’t exist.”
Science does have a way out of the circular argument. The next step is for the two to say,
“Let’s make an experiment to determine it, one way or the other.”
Where it all flies off the rails and does a great old-time serial down the canyon is trying to come up with an experiment to test God. Science doesn’t make claims on an area that cannot be tested; it’s like politicians claiming their expertise gives them credibility growing orchids. Thus, if it can’t be experimented on, it’s not considered to be in the bounds of science.
Jersey:
Well, as for the Big Bang, Hubble observed that distant galaxies are moving away from us. Not in any direction, but ALL galaxies moved away from us. And from each other, as well. This created a firestorm and directly challenged the held model of the universe as steady and unchanging. But eventually a theory on the big bang was proposed and experiments, such as finding the microwave background radiation, conducted to test it. A scientific theory with corroborating data, no matter who it upsets, is going to stand on it’s own merits.
Creationists are wrong about the earth being created in 6000 years. The Bible does not teach that. Misinformation is wrong whether it is accidental or on purpose. I think Richard Dawkins knows the facts. What benefit is there in self-deception? Greed and power.
Kia, Darron, Azure I understand what you’re saying. But what I don’t understand is how (some) scientists will completely take the possibility of God off the table, but then go on to say “well, maybe it was aliens, or molecules riding on the back of a crystal”?
So going back to the experiment example, why are they willing to entertain that way may have been “seeded” by aliens from another planet but it’s completely anathema to them to consider it might have been a creator?
I mean seriously, how is one of those not more science fiction than the other? And that idea of course does nothing more than push the question backwards by one degree… ie. Where did the aliens come from?
I guess my point is similar in theme to what Surma said above: Why is a theory of alien seeding ok to be entertained but not a creator?
Vic
“why are they willing to entertain that life may have been “seeded” by aliens from another planet but it’s completely anathema to them to consider it might have been a creator?”
Because the first could be “science” and the second can never be “science”. I. e., one is “science fiction” and the other is “not science”.
But the hypothesis of “abiogenesis” is much more likely. Of course the movie selectively quotes Dawkins to try to make him look silly.
Well, we’ve hit the semantic problem again. Theory doesn’t mean ‘theory’ in this case. Most people use theory to mean ‘idea’ or speculation. in Science, a theory is a model of something supported by data. Hence, theory of general relativity — we’re pretty sure Einstein was close to how gravity works, but no amount of verification can push a theory into a ‘law’. Same for germ theory of disease, inflationary theory, quantum mechanical theory.
An example of a law would be — ah, the one I know best is involved, sorry — the square-cube law. Well, there’s no theory of it, it’s just a physical relationship about what happens when your mad scientist in a 50’s B-Movie tries to make a dachshund the size of a bus. It don’t work ’cause the poor dog can’t walk.
Your examples of a aliens seeding the earth, microbes delivering life or God forming the biosphere aren’t theories; there’s no evidence one way or the other. Pretty much it’s a guy thinking out loud. And that’s fine. You can come up with some nice hypotheses that way, letting your creativity boil and roil and float. But it’s the difference between saying you want to be president and actually winning an election; you haven’t done the work yet to validate your dream.
This is a big problem with sub-atomic String Theory now. Many physicists argue it’s not a real theory if you can’t experimental validate anything, and string theory’s proposed experiments are so far beyond what we can test now it’s ridiculous. No, sorry string guys, you can’t put your verification of your pet idea off 30 years. Give us something to test now or it’s shelved as ‘possible, unverified’. So the proponents argue with the detractors and probably will until we build something like the Mother of All Hadron Colliders.
I guess my point is similar in theme to what Surma said above: Why is a theory of alien seeding ok to be entertained but not a creator?
Hey Vic,
As stated by onein6billion, it’s because we could possibly test an alien seeding. If they landed here did they leave more than just the building blocks of life? Maybe some ancient life-production factory we could discover? And does our type of life match up with life we eventually find on other planets? Might our galaxy be teaming with life because of these seedings that we could eventually test and compare to our own to validate the hypothesis of alien seeding billions of years ago?
This is all just a playful mind exercise with no basis in fact. There’s absolutely no evidence to support the “alien seeding hypothesis”. And there in lies the problem with ID. Not only is there no evidence to support the “ID Hypothesis”, there aren’t even any falsifiable tests defined to check ID! At least with our little “alien seeding hypothesis” we could come up with some comparitive tests to determine if alien seeding happened or not. With ID you just get this HUGE presupposition: “An Intelligent Designer (GOD) did it”, and then you try to work to make the evidence fit the presupposition. That’s not how science works. Basically, the ID proponents want a free ride AROUND the scientific method. Check out this video by Evolutionary Biologist (and Christian) Ken Miller talking about ID. He says it better than anyone!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aO5us0qHcwc
Cheers! Happy Sunday!
It’s funny how I read some of this. There seems to be an assumption on either side of the debate that ID=God. I’m not going to make that assumption and I would think that any of the scientifically minded would avoid that assumption (or any other assumption) as well.
If (big IF) some could entertain the idea of advanced aliens “seeding” our planet, they just conceded the concept of ID as a possibility of how we got here.
Face it, if were were advanced enough to “seed” all life onto a planet and created “read cloned” ourselves onto said planet, if we told those people that we (the creators) were their creators and they should call us god and angles, what do you think they would call us?
Dawkins admitted in the movie he can accept the concept intelligent design. What he can’t accept is that the intelligent designer is god.
In the bible book of genesis it says of the first six days that the there was morning then evening, the end of a creative day. There was no evening mentioned for the seventh day so we can use further bible evidence to prove we are still in the seventh creative day. Genesis 1:1 has no time limit on the beginning. This event could have taken place over millions of years just as scientists say.
Scientists just need to accept correct information
I think I will get this film when it shows up on Netflix. But I do have an opinion I will express now.
I don’t think Intelligent Design should be taught as science. But I think that when they start the block on Evolution in schools, the teacher ought to read the following statement, “Evolution is a theory and we are teaching it here because there is an abundance of evidence that it is at least mostly correct. But the fact that we are teaching in the classroom should not be construed as a comment on the validity or invalidity of anyone’s religious beliefs.”
That way, we keep religion from intruding on science but we also keep science from intruding on God. I can’t help but think that some people want things both ways: which is to say, “It’s wrong for religion to intrude on science, but I will gleefully attack religious beliefs on the grounds that they aren’t scientific.”
It’s funny how I read some of this. There seems to be an assumption on either side of the debate that ID=God. I’m not going to make that assumption and I would think that any of the scientifically minded would avoid that assumption (or any other assumption) as well.
Hey Dennis, as it pertains to this movie, Ben Stein was on Hannity and Colmes the other night talking about the film, and at the end he was asked to give a summary and stated, “People took our GOD away from us and gave us darwinism. Darwinism doesn’t work; we’d like our GOD back.” Here’s the clip:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=F7Wj6_DLV0M
If you don’t assume that ID=God, then ID could be anything inside or outside this universe, including space aliens, right? Just some as of yet undefined “intelligence”. Unfortunately, I’ve never heard of a supporter of ID who takes this stance. Religion is always right behind the ID proponents. The biggest ID thinktank is the Discovery Institute. If you want to read something scary check out their “wedge strategy” to get religion into government/school/etc. ID is simply a political strategy to insert religion into our lives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
Cheers!
“It’s wrong for religion to intrude on science, but I will gleefully attack religious beliefs on the grounds that they aren’t scientific.”
Unfortunately “scientific progress” is very often an attack on religious beliefs. In 1633 Galileo showed evidence that the Sun was the center of the universe and not the Earth. But Biblical teaching states the Earth is the center of everything. The Inquisition, which was run by the Catholic Church, brought him up on heresy charges and he spent the last 10 years of his life under house arrest.
Science is now delving into the chemical makeup of life to see if and how life could spring from non-life. In the next decade or two biochemists will more than likely have an answer to abiogenesis (life from non-life). And, if not, there will be other scientific hypothesis that will be explored! The point is that sooner or later we will have a scientific explanation for life. We humans are very creative and our knowledge of the universe is growing exponentially! It’s crazy to think that there might be someone out there right now putting the pieces together to that age-old question of “where do we come from?”. And I doubt it will be some guy in a temple or church who brings the good news, but rather some nerdy scientist in a white lab coat working late at night in his laboratory. He’ll suddenly lookup, cock his head to the left, and say, “Hrmmm, that’s weird…”
Cheers!
I am planning on seeing this shortly. I think it looks great and I won’t hold my breath on anyone the nets opinion. It will be blown out of proportion and make the movie look horrid.
I think anyone in their right mind should see it for themselves before bring up any questions.
This is in response to Surma’s post. The claim that Mr. Dawkins believes that the earth was seeded by aliens is false. In fact, this claim, like many made in “Expelled” is drawn from the manipulation of footage from the interviews. This happens no less than four other times in the film and is just one other example of the film’s intellectual dishonesty.
Mr. Dawkin’s take on the interview can be found his website, but I have posted an excerpt here:
“Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It’s the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots (”oh NOOOOO, of course we aren’t talking about God, this is SCIENCE”) and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn’t rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent ‘crane’ (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists’ whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity — and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently — comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.
This ‘Ultimate 747′ argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or may not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment — however implausible — was designed to illustrate intelligent design’s closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don’t think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.
Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won’t get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. “What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.” “Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE.” I can’t remember whether this was the moment in the film where we were regaled with another Lord Privy Seal cut to an old science fiction movie with some kind of android figure – that may have been used in the service of trying to ridicule Francis Crick (again, dutiful titters from the partisan audience).”
I’m a geologist with a Master’s degree circa 1985, so I have always accepted that the fossil record shows an increasing diversity of life forms on earth over time. This is one of, if not the most, important evidences of the biologic evolution of species. But with the much more detailed information we have today about what cells really are, and what an astonishing degree of complexity they possess, there is another objective area of learning, utilized constantly by science, that comes into play here. That is statistical probability. I don’t think there is anyone who can claim to accomodate today’s detailed knowledge of cells into the Darwinian insight of the selection of advantageous mutations advancing the fitness of life for survival. The probability of something as intricate as a cell forming through a random process is, practically speaking, non-existent. Evolution therefore breaks down as an explanation of life’s origin, and this should be acknowledged in the teaching of science in schools, whether in grade school or in universities. This acknowledgement has little to with fortifying any relgion, but with merely analyzing statistical probability. An an illustration of the kind of non-existent probability we’re talking about, how many billions or even trillions of years would it take for mice running over a keyboard to produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare?
So at minimum the movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” hits home with this point.
I enjoyed the documentary and it is clear that there really are two distinct world views and that Stein is correct - the “scientific” point of view has totally bought into the atheist, evolutionist position. The result is a culture of death that has lost the integrity of scientific inquiry and embraced the kool-aid of abortion and eugenics. Cheers to Stein for having the courage to call them on it!
Vic said “what I don’t understand is how (some) scientists will completely take the possibility of God off the table”. Actually, even Dawkins doesn’t do so completely; he recently said on “Real Time” he’s only a 6.9 on his one-to-seven scale. This just means he sees no reasonable evidence of the existence for any divinity so far described being other than human psychosis.
As for “Why is a theory of alien seeding ok to be entertained but not a creator”, the answer is: we have solid evidence of life, a planet with life, and more than one planet. It’s not that big a jump to ask if other planets might have life, and then which planet had life first, and whether there’s connection between them. Without comparably solid evidence for God, “God did it” is a much bigger jump.
As far as I can tell, Science relies explicitly on the assumptions of formal Logic (such as via the Robins Axioms) and Mathematics (based these days from the foundations of the Zermelo-Fraenkel set axioms), and an implict assumption of the Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis or similar equivalent. Candidate hypotheses are compared to all available evidence via certain formal criteria (see Wallace/Dowe “Minimum Message Length and Kolmogorov Complexity” and Vitányi/Li “Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism and Kolmogorov Complexity”), and the title belt handed to the reigning champion until the next challenger shows up.
Part of science, thus, is gathering evidence. Repeatable Experimentation is merely a perfectly acceptable way of making sure you can get lots of evidence to support a particular theory; if you feel pain each and every time you hit your thumb with a hammer, that makes it easy for theories which predict that to win over theories that don’t. Most evidence and science is more ambiguous than that, but the basic idea holds.
Another part of science is forming a candidate hypothesis. While the “how” of this is of great interest to Historians of Science, it doesn’t matter much to Science whether you get your candidate hypothesis by staring at a chalkboard whilst overcaffinated, getting hit by a falling apple, or get it presented to you on Golden Tablets by a Choir of Seraphim (although the last may affect publication co-authorship expectations). Once you have a hypothesis, it can be tested against other candidates. If it loses, go back to work and don’t whine about it.
The heart is the process of competitive comparison of one theory against another. As a result of the character of the criteria used for judging, a mathematical version of Occam’s Razor results, detailed in the W-D/V-L papers I mentioned. The idea of “God” does not make a fully descriptive explanation of the evidence shorter than descriptive explanations not using “God”, and is therefore “God” hypotheses are less probably correct.
Amusingly, since hypotheses undergo variation and competitive selection, Science is another evolutionary process… if one where speciation isn’t as firm a wall as in biology.
As for T Edward’s remark that “The probability of something as intricate as a cell forming through a random process is, practically speaking, non-existent. Evolution therefore breaks down as an explanation of life’s origin [....]“, this is misleading. The theory of Evolution properly only explains life’s diversity and diversification; the ultimate origin of life versus non-life is properly referred to by the name “Abiogenesis”. Although of great interest to biologists, Abiogenesis is fundamentally a question of Autocatalytic Organic Chemistry. For a relatively recent overview of the state-of-the-art, see “Minimal self-replicating systems,” Robertson et alia in Chemical Society Reviews.
Great post abb3w! I’ll check out the absracts and citations. The actual paper is over my head though…
Also, to T Edwards post, I’m reminded of that old quote which I is attributed to Arthur C. Clarke, “First, they’ll say it’s impossible; then they’ll say it’s highly improbable; then they’ll say it was obvious the entire time.”
I’m betting our ignorance with regards to organic chemistry is the biggest hindrance to coming up with a probability for abiogenesis that lines up with… reality. =)
Cheers!
I think that the reason that this film touches a nerve with the the liberal left is that it exposes the PC thought process. Brent Bozell, in an earlier article today wrote “Liberalism is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension”. It will be interesting how the left wing media treat this movie compared to any of the Michael Moore films.
Regarding Dawkins, probably my biggest problem with him is his attitude toward those that don’t agree with him. It reminds of me of the “elite” global warming crowd.
Regarding “deceptive film editing techniques,” lol, have you ever SEEN a Michael Moore movie?
The immediate example that comes to mind was his clever editing of Charlton Heston making two speeches on different occasions into what seemed to be one speech promoting gun ownership right after the Columbine incident.
And say what you will, I don’t believe that if something is not testable it automatically means that it cannot exist.
Vic
Earlier, instead of saying “Evolution breaks down..” I should have said “there continues to be no scientific accounting as to how the first life on earth began..” In the minds of some ordinary folks, I suspect that evolution (the theory of how life’s diversity came to be) is confused with the question of life’s origins, which continue to be as mysterious, even more mysterious, than ever. An intelligent design is not even close to being dismissable through the accomplishments of science, as Dawkins might like us to believe. While God need not be invoked when teaching the theory of evolution (which merely purports to account for life’s diversity) still we do not know from whence we came, which is every bit as true now as it was in the dark ages or at any time in human history. It is and was the human condition.
Alien. Dictionary says a creature from outer space. What is God or angels if not from outer space. So life on earth was started from alien beings. Did they communicate with us? Are they intelligant? Of course. We have a choice to accept or not their communication.
“While God need not be invoked when teaching the theory of evolution (which merely purports to account for life’s diversity) still we do not know from whence we came, which is every bit as true now as it was in the dark ages or at any time in human history. It is and was the human condition.”
Come now! Surely you jest! Since the dark ages we’ve learned soooooo much more about where we come from and where we sit in this universe. We understand how the very atoms that make up our bodies were forged in the big bang and in the hearts of massive dying stars! To say we’re still “in the dark ages” with respect to knowing where we come from is to throw away a good portion of the science that we unraveled since humans were able to ask the question “where do we come from?”.
I can see us having a working theory of abiogenesis in my lifetime. It will be fought against as hard as those who fight against evolution today, and those who fought against heliocentrism in Galileo’s time. But eventually reason and science will win out of faith and superstition. And only then will humanity be united in a way that will allow science to focus on the most important task that will ever face as a species: Making a better beer!
Cheers!
What is God or angels if not from outer space.
Good question. Can someone please define for me exactly where God and angels reside? I’m guessing god is technically IN this universe because he allegedly performs miracles and such. Is he just in a different dimension? Does he just peek into the universe, do some tweaking, then jump out before he’s seen? Does he reside in outerspace as Clint said? How would a theologian answer the question?
C.S. Lewis supposed that God was like the architect of a house. As the architect of the universe God is not part of the universe but may do whatever he chooses to it.
In any event, this whole thing is not really a battle between science and the uneducated, but between atheism and church folks. Science is inside and part of the Architects “house” and therefore is incapable of apprehending Him.
WOW Vic what have you created?!
And the last time I commented I was ‘under the influence”.
Havnt seen this film but I thought I would dumb down this post a little. (Cause I’m really good at that!).
=•/
Fact:
Scientists can’t explain “Dark_matter” or even Solar activity.
Why would I or (anyone) look to them for answers on proof of God’s exisistance? (IMO) They havnt invented the terminology yet to discribe it…
I think Dave on the Lake, made a good point about Pollitical Correctness. This film seems to be another PC discussion on god vs science… Blahhh humbug. Bttd. Yawn/fart sound.
I tend to look away from both camps on this one. There’s a lot of non-mainstream print material on aliens and near death experience’s that lead me to conclude its not just black and white. There’s also a huge grey area.
Scientists hate grey areas.
(No alien pun intended?).
Now thanks to all these posts and Ben Steins voracous ad campaign I need to get some “Clear Eye’ drops.
“we do not know from whence we came”
This seems to me to be the heart of the issue. A lot of people don’t seem to be willing/able to accept “I don’t know” as an answer. As such, they fall back on religious explanations to fill in those gaps. While I have no problem with people doing that, I do have a problem with the attitude that everyone else should do so that seems to be inherent in this movement to teach ID in science classes.
“I don’t believe that if something is not testable it automatically means that it cannot exist”
I agree with you there, Vic. I can’t, however, believe in something that hasn’t been tested and supported by verifiable evidence.
I enjoyed the documentary and it is clear that there really are two distinct world views and that Stein is correct - the “scientific” point of view has totally bought into the atheist, evolutionist position.
The theory of evolution is not an “atheist” position. It is fundamentally dishonest to equate acceptance of the theory of evolution with atheism. Additionally, in suggesting that there are two “distinct world views”, you have failed to explain the scope of the “world view”. If you are suggesting worldviews regarding a scientific explanation of the origin of biodiversity, then you are incorrect as there is only one worldview. If you are referencing worldviews regarding the cause of biodiversity regardless of whether or not they are scientific, then yau are incorrect as there exist far more than two claims on that particular subject.
I think that the reason that this film touches a nerve with the the liberal left is that it exposes the PC thought process.
I believe that the important source of discontent is not the “liberal left”, but rather the scientific community who have exposed a number of demonstrably false claims made within the movie.
T Edward “While God need not be invoked when teaching the theory of evolution (which merely purports to account for life’s diversity) still we do not know from whence we came, which is every bit as true now as it was in the dark ages or at any time in human history. It is and was the human condition.”
clint “Come now! Surely you jest! Since the dark ages we’ve learned soooooo much more about where we come from and where we sit in this universe. We understand how the very atoms that make up our bodies were forged in the big bang and in the hearts of massive dying stars! To say we’re still “in the dark ages” with respect to knowing where we come from is to throw away a good portion of the science that we unraveled since humans were able to ask the question “where do we come from?”.”
Since the dark ages, with regard to living things, humans have gained information on mechanisms of variation and structure. We have also elucidated much about the physical universe, in the area of classical and modern physics. It is an impressive array of knowledge, without any doubt. But..the mysteries regarding the origin of life itself and the origin of matter/energy itself are completely intact. We conscious living beings are without (ultimate) understanding, by any reckoning, of how we happen to find ourselves here. This is what leaves an ocean of space, philosphically, for the supposition of an Intelligence higher than us.
Darwin excited the thought in many that everything we observe could ultimately be explained as having naturalistic causes, that is, no higher power needed. But it is apparent, so far, that cells alone (contrary to what Darwin supposed) are too complex to be explained close to this simply. Science has no answer for this and there’s nothing really on the horizon.
The Bible tells us that God has a spirit body, that humans cannot physically see him because it would kill us. (Try looking at the sun for any length of time with no protection.)
The Bible also tells us that he is not omnipresent but he can be any where he chooses to be. God and the angels do not need food, air, or other things to sustain their life.
To understand this better, think of electricity, radio waves, or gravity. Humans cannot see these things without aids. But they do exist. God and the angels not only exist but have intelligence.
Do the research on Darwin and you will find that he made up alot of his findings so that he could gain notority.
Yeah clint, there’s theorists and some scientists that believe in a source of energy that is everywhere.
Its called Zero Point energy.
They just don’t know how too tap into it. Yet?
I saw the movie today and it was very good. I urge everyone to take the time to see it and draw your own conclusions. The think that jumped out at me was how the evolutionists theories of the beginning are so “fantastic”. They have NO IDEA how it all got started.
It would be like someone looking at a 2006 Honda Accord and then finding junk yards all over the world with bits and pieces of automobiles going back 70 years or so and concluding that the car somehow evolved and pointing to the junk yards as evidence.
My son is in 7th grade and being exposed to bits and pieces of Darwin’s theories, being taught as rock solid science, and when they kids ask the hard question: How did it all start? They get wild speculation.
And this is science?
Go Ben!!! Great movie.
Mr. Max: Your seem to be very skeptical of science. I’m GLAD to see that trait in you. Please apply that same level of skepticism to all areas of your life evenly and see what happens! Cheers!
Can’t prove ID? Correct.
But can you prove evolution? Wrong.
Did we evolve? Maybe. But the “theory” of evolution is just that - a theory. Believe it if you will, but the fossil record is still lacking much proof.
Both evolution and ID requires a certain amount of faith since neither can be proven. When the evolutionists react so strongly to a film showing an opposing view it only shows the weakness of their arguments and supports Stein’s argument.
I suppose ultimately one theory or the other will be proven in the end. If upon your death you simpy black out for ever - then the evolutionists were right. If upon your death you come face to face with God - then I supposed ID will look pretty strong to you.
I for one truly hope for the latter. If for no other reason than to watch the stunned faces of those who don’t believe in ID. It should prove to be a rather entertaining encounter…
“They have NO IDEA how it all got started.”
Thing is, science admits it doesn’t have all the answers. This is one question that simply remains unanswered. Maybe scientists will find the answer one day, but just because they haven’t yet doesn’t mean the science behind evolution theory is wrong. After all, evolution only explains how humans and other present day animals came to be what they are, not how life got started.
Are there gaps? Yes, and there always will be in any area of science. After all, we only know for certain what we can see directly. No one alive has directly witnessed all of Earth’s history, therefore no one alive can say with 100% certainty how everything occurred. The best that can be done is to take the evidence available and extrapolate from that the most likely explanation. Think of science as being like a court case: The jury (scientists) doesn’t always know for certain what happened, but they look at the evidence and take their best guess.
Anyone who expects to ever have all the answers is, and rightly should be, extremely disappointed.
“It would be like someone looking at a 2006 Honda Accord and then finding junk yards all over the world with bits and pieces of automobiles going back 70 years or so and concluding that the car somehow evolved and pointing to the junk yards as evidence.”
Well, technically, they have evolved. They’ve become more fuel efficient, faster, more aerodynamic, etc…. The fact that human knowledge is the driving force behind that evolution doesn’t change the fact that cars, or rather automotive technology, have evolved. The mechanism of that evolution is the only difference. We evolved by natural selection, and cars evolved by way of our improved understanding how to make things work better.
Listen guys, after reading all the previous posts, I have come to several conclusions that are quite interesting. First of all, the debate about Intellegent Design should leave “God” out of the picture. We are not debating whether God was involved or not. The Ultimate question asks: Is there evidence of a designer whomever he may be.
The ID community constantly claims that Evolution has holes in its theory. And rightfully they should. Darwin came up with his idea in the 18th century. His theory is nearly 200 years old and needs revision. The most common problem that I hear about is the Fossil Dating Method. Fossils get dated by what rock layers they are found in; and Rock layers are dated according to the type of fossils in the layers. This uses circular reasoning. The ID community is correct in their claim that a revision is needed.
Now they Evolutionists constantly batter the ID community on their lack of “evidence”. And they are just in their actions. But don’t be so quick just yet to shout in victory. I want to bring about something that is constantly ignored by the Evo. community.
The Evolution guys laugh at the ID guys’ version/idea of origin. Lets evaluate the Evo. Guys’ version(A very basic summary): The Big Bang Theory states that at one point there was nothing. Now this ‘nothing’ decided to get together and pulled itself together (without gravity) into a tiny space. Then there was so much of this emptiness/nothingness that it exploded; creating hydrogen and energy. Guys, I know there is more to this theory but this IS the bare bones of it. It is a practical summary of the Big Bang Theory. The theory relies on the idea of Creation by chance.
So here we have it. The ID group doesn’t have hardcore evidence for their theory while the Evo. group requires ‘just as much’ FAITH as the ID group does in thier observations and interpretations of our origin in this remarkable universe.
People, please learn to accept the flaws and complications within your theories when you discuss them. Thats what Science is all about, unbais analasys. Take care.
I know the answer to life, the universe and everything: 42. :o)
The age-old argument and done in a civil manner. Great job!
I am a Christian and I truly believe God created the universe. I also believe that evolution is possible and that God created the universe to sustain itself. Can I prove this? Of course not. The only way to prove God is for God to physically prove himself; no one can give any evidence to prove a metaphysical being unless that being wants to be proven.
Did Ghengis Kahn exist? How about Napoleon Bonapart? Can you prove beyond a doubt they existed? No you can’t, but we all believe they did. There was a time recently when scientists did not believe the biblical Hitites existed until some archeological digs revealed they did exist.
My Christian brethren, just give it to God for Himself to be proven. There is nothing you can say to a person who doesn’t believe in God to make them believe.
Hey John did you see the Original HGTTG? Its real good.
One thing is for sure atheists and Christains all find out the truth when they die.
The Atheists just take longer to get a grip on the afterlife and are more prone to hang around as a ghost. (IMO)
So I say , “why sweat the small stuff”…..
But when atheists and christians die they may each see something different.
the christians may see god because they expect to .
the atheist may see nothing or a dark blackness
bacuse they dont believe in god or heaven .
Either way,
We will never know.
Well Gary
(First off this is all my opinion and your prob gonna think I’m nuts but)….
from what I’ve read on the subject everyone see’s the light but its your choice to go into it.
Some atheists don’t go into the light because they fear Gods wrath (for not believing, etc) others still don’t believe there dead (because your spirit is just as alive on the other side). Since there’s no “Time” over there they could linger earth bound for decades.
Usually enough friends die off and come down to bring the atheist spirit home.
Also…..
There is no Hell and we end up judging ourselves in the end. For God cannot judge only love.
Have we ever seen a house built by itself? So who constructed all things? Hebrews 3:4 has the answer.
In the movie I noticed how complicated that strand was. I don’t think it happened by itself.
Zero point energy sounds like the source could easily be from God.
I’ll say there is much more intelligent discussion on this comments post than some others I’ve read this past weekend, so thanks all.
I’d like to respond to a couple short things and quote myself from another site.
First as to Galileo being persecuted,etc., by the Catholic church: You should realize that he was probably heavily persecuted by the then scientific community. Kudos to him for speaking his mind, though. But all any of that proves is that humans on any leve (the church or the science community) can draw wrong conclusions from the data.
Second, someone mentioned ‘ID should leave God out of the picture’. This is likely impossible as any discussion of origins (where IS the starting point of this) logically will lead to the necessity of a self-existent, all-powerful, creative being–in a word, God. See “The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
Even the idea of aliens planting seeds leads to that same problem: where did THEY come from (as Dawkins points out in the above quote).
Lastly, quoting myself from elsewhere:
There are generally considered to be two forms of evolution: Macro and micro, speciation being the dividing line. There are VERY few Christians who would deny microevolution––subtle adaptive changes within a species. It’s the idea of species developing from others and specifically and ORIGINALLY from nothing which we think is nonsense. That thought itself would involve breaking several much more established LAWS of logic and science (for instance, the law of non-contradiction: something can’t be and NOT be at the same time in the same relationship; law of inertia: something can’t change of it’s own accord without being acted on by an outside force).
This brings me to a second point. I think it would also be helpful to point out that science is not merely empirical. There is a second and maybe more important factor in scientific inquiry: reason. You can gather all the physical facts you want until your face is a dark shade of indigo and still not be able to come to any reliable conclusions without a reasoned epistomology: How do you know what you know? The rules of logic and reasoning are also needed, and for ID folks or more specifically for those like me who believe in a Creation by God (a subset of the Intelligent Design community), that origin is the total failure of the argument from the point of view of macro-evolution and the success of the theist argument.”
Thanks again for intelligent discussion and simply falling into party lines!
OOPS! Two typos in my above post:
First, at the very end, that was supposed to say “and NOT falling into party lines!”!!!! (sorry)
And re Galileo, the scientific community of his day did in fact persecute him. I meant to say “MORE heavily”.
Again, apologies.
Yes, I have no issue at ALL with micro-evolution, it’s the macro variety that I personally choke on. Yes, I will admit that I’ve never actually read ‘Origin of the Species’ but based on every single documentary/Discovery Channel/National Geographic thing I’ve seen or read, it seems to be that everything Darwin discovered in the Galapagos pointed strongly and without doubt at MICRO-evolution. How in the heck the leap was made from changes within a species to changes from one species to another is beyond me.
Vic
Hey Vic,
What would you accept as proof of macro-evolution? I can spout on all day long about genetic similarities to our closest mammal relatives, with more genetic differences found in more distant relatives. I could point to the fossil record, but that seems to be easily dismissed.
However, there’s one area that I’ve found which makes all my religious friends very uncomfortable when I bring it up as proof of macro-evolution: The Human Tail. We (humans) actually have the same gene (Wnt-3a) that many of our other mammal cousins do (mice/dogs/etc). It’s just in a dormant state in our genome. But every so often a human is born with that gene flipped on, and they grow a fully-functional tail, with voluntary muscle, blood vessels, specialized nerves and sensing organs. They can wag just like any other mammal’s tail. So how different are we really from our cousins? Thoughts?
Oh, and here’s a link if you want to read up on human tails:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2
Cheers!
I wonder how would darwin defend his own theories today?
Would he defend them at all?
Expelled opened in ninth place with 3.2 million and was the only film in the top ten to suffer a drop in sales from friday to saturday.
My source was Box office guru ,
If anyone has more precise numbers or can explain how it stacked up against recent high profile documentaries like Farenheit9/11 or An Incovenient truth please chime in .
I am a strongly believing Christian MS geologist and yet accept macro-evolution. For that I am forced to give up a completely literal understanding of the book of Genesis. The gathered evidence that satisfies me as to the probable truth of Darwin’s basic premise is the appearance in the fossil record, at different points in time separated by breaks which can be on the order of millions of years, of the major phyla, families and species. There is a pattern of their appearance on earth when physical conditions in earth history became hospitable for a particular kind of life form (for example there was once little emergent land or plant life, and therefore terrestrial life forms did not emerge until conditions were right). Gaps in the fossil record are traditionally accounted for because of it being the exception, not the rule, for organisms to be preserved as fossils. Paleontologists point to examples in the fossil record of transitional fossils or links between species, and it’s my opinion that the insistence that there are no linking fossils at all is a difficult one to defend. If the variety of species present on earth are not explained by evolution, then as creationists we would have to believe that God created each species specially at unique points in earth history separated by up to millions of years, to mimic what would we would see in the record had they evolved. This strikes me as a little absurd, on a par with the notion that the earth was created with the deceiving appearance of great age. The notion that God created each species at a different time in earth’s history does not quite fit a literal understanding of Genesis either, and it is impossible to avoid the the conclusion that organisms become more complex and varied over the span of earth history. Accepting all of this as probable fact, I nonetheless am convinced as I can be that Christ arose from the dead, even from an evidentiary & historical point of view.
This is a question for everyone .
whats the craziest theory you have ever heard explaining the creation of both the earth and the universe ?
i am looking specifically for scientific theories that might not be widely publicized.
of course if have pagan theories ,mayan gods , greek gods etc , i will take that too .
I am just looking for theories outside of known creationism and darwinism.
Think outside of the box!
From EW:
“Also of note, Ben Stein’s political/science documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (No. 9) earned $3.2 mil. That’s a very respectable total for a documentary, although non-fiction fare rarely opens in 1,052 theaters, as this right-leaning movie did. It’s also, as you’ll no doubt read elsewhere, substantially smaller than the $23.9 mil that the left-leaning Fahrenheit 9/11 debuted with in 2004 — but I’m not sure that’s a fair comparison given how Michael Moore’s film was about a much more resonant topic, had broad mainstream buzz, and opened during the summer.”
“Nevertheless, Expelled performed much better than the weekend’s other new current-affairs documentary, Where in the World Is Osama Bin Laden? That movie, the second feature from Super Size Me’s Morgan Spurlock, banked a mere $143,299 in 102 locations, for a terrible $1,405 average.”
Vic
since I mentioned the films 3.2 million dollar take,I should point out that it opened on only one thousand screens.
I believe this little story comes from a lecture Betrand Russell gave about astronomy. It’s a stab at the idea of biblical creation (first cause arguement). Here’s the story:
———-
A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.”
The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?”
“You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”
Of course I know we have much in common with other species on the planet and that as a species we have adapted to our environments.
As T Edward states, regardless of whether evolution is true or not, that would not shake my belief in God. I just tend to wonder (among other examples) why we don’t have some species of apes/monkeys that are building their own primitive societies… mud huts and such. Why there are not species of monkeys who’ve developed speech albeit using a different language. Why have some species that are always being used as comparitive to humans seemingly stopped evolving so far behind us?
Why are we the only species that appreciates beauty (not just from an evolution-based mating perspective, but works of art, sunsets, etc.)? Why are we the only ones who even care about this issue?
And finally why is there life at all? Why do we not just have a universe devoid of life? Why is there something instead of nothing?
Oh, and regarding the argument that nothing that cannot be tested can exist, did black holes and other astronomical entities only pop into existence once we discovered a way to test/analyze them? I could use other examples, but you get my point.
Vic
Hey John did you see the Original HGTTG? Its real good
790
I only saw the movie that came out a couple of years ago. I just loved that little robot.
Scientific theory?? At what point will the walking fish get displayed at the museum?
One should visit the “Bodies” display making it’s way around the world. Look at the complexities of the human body, vascular, circulatory, waste. Think thru the actual process. To arrive at a conclusion that humans are a product of millineal development verifies what Vic says: your mind is made up and it won’t be changed.
So what about that scientific evidence? Are we scheduling a reality show with Geraldo and we’ll uncover and expose it along with Capones treasure?
The river card is up….play the hand.
I remember the X-Files did an episode on a guy with a tail.
^
Yeah if you get a chance John check out the original BBC “Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe”. Its like 3.5 hours long and includes a lot that the film left out.(And Marvin is much funnier).
Darron, kinda funny at the end of Hitchhikers Guide, Douglas Adams (writer) gives us his version of how life began on Earth.
It began long ago when the Earth had become habitable.
2 spacecraft came from a destroyed world looking for a new home. One of the spaceships carried the smart, rich, upperclass of this society. The other ship carried the less-intelligent, lower class etc.
Well the upper class ship told the lower class ship that they were going to go scout ahead and that they would be back later to pick them up.
The lower class ship eventually started to fall into dis-repair and the occupants were forced to land on Earth. Funny thing the other ship never came back.
Great movie. Btw
EVIDENCE for Intelligent Design!
The largest reason I don’t see Evolution as a plausable theory is due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics aka Law of Entropy. This Law has been considered by such men as Albert Einstein to be the most enduring and solid of the Physical Laws.
The Law of Entropy renders totally unworkable the possibility of a Big Bang, stellar or planetary evolution, or the chance origin and evolution of life forms. In other words, it is physically Impossible for a chaotic scene(Big Bang) to evolve into the extremely organized and orderly structures we know today. For Example: When you leave a car in the desert, it will erode over time. It will not however, evolve into a tank.
No one can go against a Physical Law. Laws can neither be ignored, that would be straight up Scientific ignorance. With the lack of possiblity for evolution, the only possible conclusion I can arrive to is the possibility of Intelligent Design. I have accepted God as my saviour and that has in no way altered my ability to learn and contribute to society.
At what point will the walking fish get displayed at the museum?
I’m confused. You realize that there are many living species of amphibious “walking” fish that live most of their lives in the water, but can walk on land and spend sometimes spend DAYS at a time traversing land to get from one body of water to another. The mudskipper is the first that comes to mind as it is far and away the most wellknown walking fish. Here’s a link to an article for amphibious fish:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_fish
Cheers!
Good post Eduard, but entropy is a general slide from order to chaos. Things like gravity and life can work against entropy by pulling things together, building things up and such. If you want to read a REALLY great short story on the subject of how entropy plays out at universal scales, and that even touches on the biblical, I recommend spending 20 minutes reading this short story by Isaac Asimov:
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
It’s a GREAT story about entropy! Cheers!
One more thing. Can anyone tell me what Positive aspects the Theory of evolution has contributed to society? Every major scientist that I can think of from Newton to Einstien all believed in Intelligent Design. I can only think of negative things that Evolution promotes:
Communism
Nazism
Youthinization
Abortion
Columbin High School Shooting
I’ll stop right here for now.
Can anyone tell me what Positive aspects the Theory of evolution has contributed to society?
Off the top of my head, Evolutionary Virology is used yearly by the CDC to generate a flu shot that has saved MILLIONS of lives in this country alone. In summary, the influenza virus mutates rapidly, so every year scientists have to come up with a new flu shot that’s tailored to handle the current strain of the virus. That’s a direct application of Evolutionary Theory. Cheers!
While I believe wholeheartedly in the scriptures, I don’t think it should be used to try to prove a point to someone who doesn’t believe in God. It is the same as saying that giant talking rabbits exist because it was in Alice in Wonderland (I mean no offence, I am not comparing the bible to a book of fiction).
I took Astronomy at the University of Louisville some years ago. One of the strongest memories I have is when the professor was explaining what was going on before the Big Bang. According to him, the farthest we can surmise is an electron and positron in the eternal void that one day clashed and started the Big Bang. What created the electron and positron, according to him, is anyone’s guess.
I see no problem with evolution being true. Why do we have fingernails (claws?)? Why do we have hair on our fingers and face (fur?)? When there is a supernova that seeds a nebula which then becomes another star system, is it nature (physical laws) or is it that God made the universe to create these things itself (the physical laws)? Of course, being God, He can manipulate anything He wants; take, for example, miracles. Are miracles actually miracles because it is something outside of nature or are they miracles because it was something that happened just at the right time? The parting of the Red (Rede) Sea was a miracle because it happened just when the Israelites needed it but the actual parting was just a wind blowing to uncover the sea bed (a natural event). When Moses saw the burning bush, was this something that could never happen naturally? No. Today, in the middle east, there are bushes with natural oils that ignite under the heat but do not burn.
My whole point is that all this talk about micro vs. macro evolution, humans having tails, abiogenesis (had to look that one up), isn’t it possible that God could have designed it that way?
While I happen to agree with you, please watch the tone. I realize you’re passionate about this but I want this thread to stay civil.
Best,
Vic
don’t be confused. Look outside the literal. One other writer makes claim to the fossil record having missing pieces and explains that away by years between earthly events.
If that is even plausible, there MUST be a point one can use as the beginning of the human race as we know it. Not as we want it, as we know it. And it doesn’t seem to exist. the evolution theory has a start, goes along for a period of time (you pick it…..millions, billions, whatever) then abrubtly stops. where does it pick up again??
In response to 790’s post “EVIDENCE for intelligent design” in which the writer states:
“The largest reason I don’t see Evolution as a plausable theory is due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics aka Law of Entropy. This Law has been considered by such men as Albert Einstein to be the most enduring and solid of the Physical Laws. The Law of Entropy renders totally unworkable the possibility of a Big Bang, stellar or planetary evolution, or the chance origin and evolution of life forms. In other words, it is physically Impossible for a chaotic scene(Big Bang) to evolve into the extremely organized and orderly structures we know today. For Example: When you leave a car in the desert, it will erode over time. It will not however, evolve into a tank.
Again, we see the huge factual errors that ID pushers use to “prove” their theory. It is true that the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that, in a closed system (a system with no energy inputs), matter will erode into simpler structures.
The problem with applying this law to evolution is that the earth is NOT a closed system. We constantly receive massive energy inputs from the sun. So the Law of Entropy doesn’t really apply here.
“No one can go against a Physical Law. Laws can neither be ignored, that would be straight up Scientific ignorance. With the lack of possiblity for evolution, the only possible conclusion I can arrive to is the possibility of Intelligent Design. I have accepted God as my saviour and that has in no way altered my ability to learn and contribute to society.”
Again, the problem here is that you are equating accepting evolution with disbelief. I’m an atheist myself, but I am not among those atheists who thing that science, and especially evolution, are inconsistent with a belief in a god.
By the way, I don’t doubt that belief in god “has in no way altered” your ability to be a useful member of society. The problem that atheists, as the most discriminated-against group in America, face is the popular idea that you can’t be a productive member of society without believing in god.
I am a productive member of society. I work for a non-profit that works to protect the public from toxic chemicals and other public health issues. This is altruistic behavior. (At least, I like to think so.) And I do it without a belief in god.
I love how scientists came up for a reason we exist and the best the could do was call it the Big Bang Theory.
Oh how the aliens must laugh at us.
I love how scientists came up for a reason we exist and the best the could do was call it the Big Bang Theory.
The true irony with the name “big bang theory” is the man who coined the term was actually trying to make fun of it. He said something like, “I do not accept in any way this silly.. big bang theory”. The proponents of the theory liked it so much they used it for their model and gave us the name we have for it today! Funny stuff! Here’s a quote about it:
“In the 1940s Russian-American physicist George Gamow worked out a theory that fit with Friedmann’s solutions in which the universe expanded from a hot, dense state. In 1950 British astronomer Fred Hoyle, in support of his own opposing steady-state theory, referred to Gamow’s theory as a mere “big bang,” but the name stuck. Indeed, a contest in the 1990s by Sky & Telescope magazine to find a better (perhaps more dignified) name did not produce one.”
Sorry Blair A you have me confused with another writer.
I could never come up with that theory on a Monday morn.
If that is even plausible, there MUST be a point one can use as the beginning of the human race as we know it.
Check out the chart at the bottom of this page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
It shows you when each homonid species lived. You read it from the bottom up. So, at the top we have homo sapiens and chimps. At the bottom are all the homonids who have come before us and died off. You’ll note familiar names like homo erectus and neanderthals! So, that’s about as close as you’re going to get current for a view into when our species began! It’s not 100% precise, but we’re finding more and more evidence all the time. Cheers!
I consider myself a reasonable man (my wife would beg to differ LOL) and would have to concede that in absense of physical evidence, it is possible that the universe was created on it’s own. But can any atheist say that in absense of physical evidence disproving ID, that it is possible that the universe was created by a vast intelligence?
If that’s the case Darron, it shows how little we’ve come in terms of finding out the truth.
Were still using models that were concieved many years ago.
I personally think modern science is way off on a lot of things concerning mankind.
Darron,
Enjoyed the B Russell story, though it’s not really a stab at biblical creation––I’ve read it a few times and there are no mentions of anything on the backs of turtles. It does sound like some old cultural fable: more a story for children than an actual attempt at explaining realitites, kind of like the stork bringing babies.
Actually, that illustrates to me beautifully the idea of the need for an Uncaused Cause or First Cause as it is known in philosophy (something Russell did not buy into). There are only two possibilities there whether we’re talking about turtles or genes and chromosomes. Either there is an infinite number of turtles (an infinite number of finite causal ‘effects’-or infinite regress of finite effects) which Russell and his hero J.S. Mill would have said is logically highly improbable if not impossible, or there is a First Cause (an Uncaused Cause) which ‘created’ all other things because it (or He/Himself) itself is self-existent. In biblical language, this is the concept in the book of Reveation of God referring to himself as “Alpha and Omega”, beginning and end.
Wow, that was a mouthful.
This is why for Christians like me, ID doesn’t go far enough, though we have much common ground.
Eduard,
While I happen to agree with you, please watch the tone. I realize you’re passionate about this but I want this thread to stay civil.
Best,
Vic
Posted by: Screen Rant at April 21, 2008 11:12 AM
Sorry, I did sound a bit harsh in my question. I’ll tone it down.
Reply to Darron S’s comment:
Off the top of my head, Evolutionary Virology is used yearly by the CDC to generate a flu shot that has saved MILLIONS of lives in this country alone. In summary, the influenza virus mutates rapidly, so every year scientists have to come up with a new flu shot that’s tailored to handle the current strain of the virus. That’s a direct application of Evolutionary Theory. Cheers!
Posted by: Darron S at April 21, 2008 11:10 AM
Correct me if I’m wrong but I always thought this was the opposite of evolution. When our immune system detects a threat(virus) it generates immunity by attacking that virus’s Protein signature. In order for the virus to Adapt to this immunity, it throws of proteins; creating a new signature that our immune system can’t recognize. I see this loss of proteins as simply a form of adaptation because no New proteins have been added, but rather lost.
To conclude, I disagree with your take on Evolutionary Virology. I see it as another meer case of MicroEvolution.
Were still using models that were concieved many years ago.
Standing the test of time actually means a scientific theory is GOOD! And don’t be fooled though, big bang theory has been updated a LOT in the last 50 years! Just a few months ago nasa released physical data from the WMAP survey precisely dating the universe based on the after-glow from the big bang! You can actually SEE the glow on your TV if you turn to a channel with no signal. Some of that static you see on your tv is actually radiation from the fireball of the big bang, spreading throughout space in all directions for billions of years, permeating everything in the universe! Based on the latest data the big bang happened 13,730,000,000 years ago! Cheers!
“I consider myself a reasonable man (my wife would beg to differ LOL) and would have to concede that in absense of physical evidence, it is possible that the universe was created on it’s own.”
Maybe there is no physical evidence, but there is certainly reasonable, i.e., logical evidence that exists against a self-created universe:
For something, anything to ‘create itself’, it would have to exist and NOT exist at the same time; which sound nonsensical because it is. It violates the law of non-contradiction: something cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. (Ex-A man CAN be a son and a father at the same time, but not to the same other person. He is a son to one and a father to another.)
Vic , has this topic set the record for most comments on your site for a single topic?
Hey kmad,
The wiki article I pulled the story from stated that the story came from a lecture Betrand Russell gave titled, “Why I’m Not A Christian”. So, I’m fairly certain the story is meant to be anti-creation.
Here are references if you want more info! Thanks for your thoughts!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_I_Am_Not_a_Christian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
Cheers!
LOL, actually yes, I think it has. I believe the most prior to this was in the mid-70s.
Vic
kmad,
I agree but we both are believers in God. Of course, the question an athiest, I’m sure, will ask: “Who created God?”. You and I know that God has existed and will exist eternally, that He was never created but the athiest cannot accept that explanation. For them, there must be some type of quantifiable data, some type of physical evidence, to prove or disprove an assertion.
I can look at a leaf on a tree and be certain in my mind that God exists because of this leaf. For me, life is evidence enough for the existence of God. I’m sure someday some very gifted scientist will come up with some theory about how life began from nothing (abiogenesis) but it will just be another theory.
I’m sure someday some very gifted scientist will come up with some theory about how life began from nothing (abiogenesis) but it will just be another theory.
Interesting point there John. If future scientists are able to create life from non-life would that be interfering in the area religious folks view as reserved for god? Would using this knowledge be considered blasphemous?
Darron, this post is the Big Bang theory! Lol.
Yeah I’m down with red_shift and all that but unfortunitly I don’t trust any new data from nasa or jpl for that matter.
Big bang theory is only a theory. One that I’m sure will be proven incorrect one day.
Cheers
Viruses aren’t living organisms according to a large article in National Geographic, but fragments of nonliving DNA that just sit there until they happen to be introduced into a living host. Once there in the host, they can fit like a key into a cell, and start replicating as if they were alive (but only do so by utilizing the life activity of the host). It is like the virus has the necessary chemical composition to be caught up into to the cellular machinery of the body and replicate itself this way, again not as a living thing. Viruses are of an almost infinite variety and affect the body in myriad ways.
Therefore how can viruses ‘evolve’ since they are not living in the first place? Bacteria on the other hand are tiny living organisms.
Yeah I’m down with red_shift and all that but unfortunitly I don’t trust any new data from nasa or jpl for that matter.
Big bang theory is only a theory. One that I’m sure will be proven incorrect one day.
Cheers
=( Is there some reason you don’t trust data from NASA and JPL? Do you feel the pictures and data sent back from Hubble, WMAP, Galileo, Cassini, and other space missions is bogus? That really makes me sad… It’s good to be skeptical, but what’s your reasoning for it? And have you actually looked at the data to understand what you’re skeptical about?
On the other side of that coin; I’m skeptical about religion because I spent 2/3 of my life in a religious household, so I know that drill very well. And I know how hard it is to break the mind free of religious indoctrination. I think I can put my awakening in religious terms for you:
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. - Corinthians 13:11
Therefore how can viruses ‘evolve’ since they are not living in the first place? Bacteria on the other hand are tiny living organisms.
Hey T Edward!
They evolve via updates to their genetic code? Isn’t that how we identify and control the virus? The strain changes due to environmental pressures. Certain strains get to replicate and spread when they come in contact with suitable hosts. I agree that virus’ ride the line between life and non-life, but evolutionary virology is a very active area of study in the scientific community, so I’d say emphatically, YES, virus’ can and do evolve. =)
Darron: you have concluded it’s grown up and more mature to suppose that there is nothing greater, kinder and wiser than you in this vast universe, no One more intelligent that can trump you in power, and that humans or perhaps another alien clever race somewhere are the measure of all things? It’s somehow wise to believe that we are alone at the top?
To me that is the very height of pride and foolishness.
And presumptiveness. There is no sign other than the rising of Christ from the dead, and the occasional reported miracle. We have a friend in God, in the heavens, we just know and do not need a sign. We know He will never leave or forsake us, nor will we forsake Him with his care. We saw Him in Jesus Christ.
Christ who in His perfection is the Standard for our thoughts and our actions, the alternative to Whom is the eventual Hitlerian Abyss.
Darron: you have concluded it’s grown up and more mature to suppose that there is nothing greater, kinder and wiser than you in this vast universe, no One more intelligent that can trump you in power, and that humans or perhaps another alien clever race somewhere are the measure of all things? It’s somehow wise to believe that we are alone at the top?
=( I never said any of those thigs you stated. I’m hopeful there is intelligent life out there in the universe and am eager for us to detect signs of that life! I’m also hopeful that we will find non-sentient life is abundance in the universe, maybe even in our own solar system! I simply do not accept the hyothesis that the creator of everything in the univese is a diety who revealed himself to some people in the desert a couple thousand years ago. It’s mythology, plain and simple. I’m sorry if that sounds harsh, but I can’t think of a more honest/polite way of expressing that particular view of mine. Cheerio!
Christ who in His perfection is the Standard for our thoughts and our actions, the alternative to Whom is the eventual Hitlerian Abyss.
Really? Then what did people do for the thousands of years of recorded human history before your god? I hear those Egyptians had a pretty good civilization. You wouldn’t say the Greeks, upon whom we base Democracy, were in the “Hitlerian Abyss” would you? Many European countries are mostly atheistic and I don’t see them dropping into chaos and debauchery any moreso than what we see here in the U.S.A. Cheers!
John KT,
Brothers as you say. But part of my point is that it’s not true science if it is all data and falls apart at the point of reason/logic. At that point, theist or atheist is living in denial. You have to have an epistomolical reference point (such as reason and logic) or it’s a big basket of numbers sitting on the ground in front of an elephant. He’s almost infinitely more likely to sniff it and sit on it as he is to draw any scientific conclusions from it.
If future scientists are able to create life from non-life would that be interfering in the area religious folks view as reserved for god? Would using this knowledge be considered blasphemous?
Not sure. I would have to look at the data and find out exactly how they did this.
“If future scientists are able to create life from non-life would that be interfering in the area religious folks view as reserved for god? Would using this knowledge be considered blasphemous?”
From a theist point of view, truth is never blasphemous since God owns all truth (he made it how it is), so if we could do that (create something from nothing), that would be an ability, a gift he gave us.
However, having said that, I don’t have to tell you how unlikely in the extreme something from nothing is. In 4.5 billion years (or whatever the number is), we’ve never even touched anything remote to it. We always start with some raw material(s).
Now it’s time to give you a mild warning as well. You’re starting to step over the line, bro.
Take it easy - nothing will be solved or resolved concerning this issue on a movie review page.
Vic
“Vic, has this topic set the record for most comments on your site for a single topic?”
Vic”
LOL, actually yes, I think it has. I believe the most prior to this was in the mid-70s.
Just let me say as someone new here, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this. Thanks Vic for keeping it honest, open and polite.
That’s why I returned as a non-denominational Protestant, where it’s all about Christ and the bible and not any rules, regulations or hierarchies.
Best,
Vic
Oh yes Darron, I don’t trust nasa. “Never A Strait Answer” or the neo-nazis at jpl.
^
Read about all the lies they tell. At.
http://www.enterprisemisson.com
No problem. I believe that we should all be as polite to each other online as we would be face to face.
Now go explore more of the site and tell your friends what an awesome place it is so they all become regular visitors.
Vic
Has anyone here considered that alien life could also come from within the Earth?
There’s alot of room down there…..
kmad,
I hear ya. I suppose that’s why scientists call them theories, not facts. But there are many Christians who, for some reason or another, still believe that t