OT - new movie coming soon - to a theater near you???

[AmBraCol]

It'll be interesting to see how widely this movie will be shown, especially compared to the usual fare offered up in our movie theaters...

http://www.expelledthemovie.com

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php

[deerwhacker444]

That might be the Best movie trailer I've ever seen. Very compelling. I'll go see it.

[GANJIRO]

I will go see it.

[Jeeps]

This looks good. Ben Stein has always been a straight shooter.

[Old Ironsights]

I've always liked Ben Stein.

[Quick Karl]

Atheists and Darwinists both place themselves above God and therefore do not have to answer to any moral higher authority…

The precise reason for so many of the wrongs in society.

When you choose to believe we are nothing more than lucky monkeys and that everything started by chance, you no longer feel bad when you lie, cheat, or steal.

That’s why socialists push the atheist Darwinist agenda.

[Tycer]

Hope it comes here. I'd love to take my daughter.

[Kismet]

Atheists and Darwinists both place themselves above God and therefore do not have to answer to any moral higher authority…

First, technically speaking Atheists don't believe in God, so they certainly don't place themselves above God. "Darwinists," may or may not believe in God. I know (and know of) plenty of scientists that are religious and plenty that are not.

Second, God is not the only moral authority, so your conclusion doesn't follow your assertions. Not to mention the fact that I know a ton of "religious" people that certainly don't "answer" to any higher authority in this life, though I sure hope there is a next life so they have to answer to one there.

The precise reason for so many of the wrongs in society.

Remarkably imprecise, actually (especially when you try to combine "precise" with "many"). I won't begin to suggest that people who lack morals are not a societal ill, but to suggest that non-religious people are what are wrong with society is inane. As but one example, do you think anything is wrong with Saudi Arabian society? It is very religious, but I bet you believe there are many things wrong with that society (I know I certainly do)! You just want to say that YOUR religious society is right, which, come to think of it, is one of the many things wrong with organized religion.

When you choose to believe we are nothing more than lucky monkeys and that everything started by chance, you no longer feel bad when you lie, cheat, or steal.

Again, you are simply wrong. I believe in evolution and I feel bad when I do those things. In fact, there are a myriad of reasons why people could evolve such feelings. Evolution aside, there are also other spiritual beliefs (well outside of traditional religions) that provide people with moral structure.

That’s why socialists push the atheist Darwinist agenda.

I'm not quite sure what the Darwinist Agenda is. I'm also not quite sure how you support such an assertion. Socialism strongly supports political and economic equality. I'm not sure how that conflicts with YOUR morals, but if it actually worked (something I don't believe), I don't see how it would be a- or immoral, which is what you are suggesting.


Here is the bottom line for me on the Science v. Religion debates. Science doesn't care a whit what you believe. Really, belief has no part of the scientific process. Science is a process of asking questions and making observations. Those observations provide data that helps answer the question. It may, of course, show the opposite of what you expected to be the answer. It may answer another question. But scientists don't care if you believe the observations or answers. For example, if I hypothesize that the moon sets an hour later each day and I go out and observe it to be true, I don't care if you don't believe my observation - if it is wrong then go make your own observation and show that it is wrong. It is either an observation that can be independently confirmed by others or it cannot. If it cannot, then it is of little value to the scientific community (e.g. the claims of cold fusion about 15 years back).

The problem today is that religion wants to corrupt the scientific process. The trailer made an interesting point, what do the scientists have to fear? The answer is the corruption of the scientific process. Religion wants its place in schools and sees the corruption of science as its best avenue. (Interesting note - I am not against religion in school. In fact, I think it should practically be a required subject. But, it should be objective and include multiple religions - it should not be promoting belief per se.)

Michael Behe, in his Intelligent Design book Darwin's Black Box, asserts as a scientific argument that the eye could not have evolved. But he can provide no scientific observation that supports this. He simply gives up and says it couldn't happen because it is too improbable because it would take too many steps. (In fact, many of his "calculations" are simply wrong.) Wow, that takes some thought. Let's just give up and fill that little black box with, you guessed it, God. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE. It is the height of laziness and ignorance to reach a question that you cannot answer and to give up and toss in God. In today's society, religious fundamentalists are attacking science, not the other way around. Again, science doesn't care what religion says. But, religion absolutely does seem to care about what science says these days. (Actually, that is not really something new - the "church" has always tried to control science.)

I actually ask the opposite question as Ben Stein, what do Christians have to fear from science? Are they afraid it will answer all the questions that religion once answered? Remember that the answer to the relative position of the Earth and the Sun used to be answered by religion. But not even the most uneducated Christian still believes the Sun revolves around the Earth. (How that fact came to be may be debated, but not the mechanics!) If God exists, I am quite sure that science cannot make her not exist. But, science also cannot prove that God exists - a point that I think many religion-corrupted scientists would like to believe is not true. Religious people simply need to realize that science and religion seek to answer different questions.

Even if science can answer the question about how we are here, it can never answer the question of why we are here.

Michael in NH

[Ysabel Kid]

I will go see it.

+1 - and same for the pro Ben Stein comments!

[AmBraCol]

Here is the bottom line for me on the Science v. Religion debates. Science doesn't care a whit what you believe. Really, belief has no part of the scientific process. Science is a process of asking questions and making observations.

Michael, you're not paying attention. Many darwinist scientists are as rabid in their beliefs and opposition to other belief systems as any shia muslim. I'd suggest you take a look at the movie and do some questioning and observing and analysis of the situation. Like one of the people in the trailers says "I want to be free to follow the evidence wherever it may lead." That's the issue. If the evidence points to a creator, too many "scientists" refuse to look.

And Christians are not all afraid of the truth. The Truth sets us free. But just because someone says they've got "the truth" doesn't mean I've got to believe them, nor do you have to believe ME when I say I have the Truth. However, it would behoove you to dig deeper into the subject. I'd suggest The Truth Project as a good place to start. http://www.thetruthproject.org

[Griff]

I don't always agree with Ben Stein, but... he sure tells you how he thinks on a subject. Looks like a very thought provoking movie. I'm sure I'll enjoy it, possibly on more levels than I currently think.

And, I agree with Paul, it appears as though some scientists are being told to clam up if they find something wrong with Darwinism; AND speak up about it. That same freedom to follow the evidence is necessary for science to answer questions. I don't believe that science and religion are necessarily mutually exclusive. Staunch belief in the correctness of anything without the facts to back it up make for bad science and religion.

[Quick Karl]

Atheists and Darwinists both place themselves above God and therefore do not have to answer to any moral higher authority…

First, technically speaking Atheists don't believe in God, so they certainly don't place themselves above God. "Darwinists," may or may not believe in God. I know (and know of) plenty of scientists that are religious and plenty that are not.

Second, God is not the only moral authority, so your conclusion doesn't follow your assertions. Not to mention the fact that I know a ton of "religious" people that certainly don't "answer" to any higher authority in this life, though I sure hope there is a next life so they have to answer to one there.

The precise reason for so many of the wrongs in society.

Remarkably imprecise, actually (especially when you try to combine "precise" with "many"). I won't begin to suggest that people who lack morals are not a societal ill, but to suggest that non-religious people are what are wrong with society is inane. As but one example, do you think anything is wrong with Saudi Arabian society? It is very religious, but I bet you believe there are many things wrong with that society (I know I certainly do)! You just want to say that YOUR religious society is right, which, come to think of it, is one of the many things wrong with organized religion.

When you choose to believe we are nothing more than lucky monkeys and that everything started by chance, you no longer feel bad when you lie, cheat, or steal.

Again, you are simply wrong. I believe in evolution and I feel bad when I do those things. In fact, there are a myriad of reasons why people could evolve such feelings. Evolution aside, there are also other spiritual beliefs (well outside of traditional religions) that provide people with moral structure.

That’s why socialists push the atheist Darwinist agenda.

I'm not quite sure what the Darwinist Agenda is. I'm also not quite sure how you support such an assertion. Socialism strongly supports political and economic equality. I'm not sure how that conflicts with YOUR morals, but if it actually worked (something I don't believe), I don't see how it would be a- or immoral, which is what you are suggesting.


Here is the bottom line for me on the Science v. Religion debates. Science doesn't care a whit what you believe. Really, belief has no part of the scientific process. Science is a process of asking questions and making observations. Those observations provide data that helps answer the question. It may, of course, show the opposite of what you expected to be the answer. It may answer another question. But scientists don't care if you believe the observations or answers. For example, if I hypothesize that the moon sets an hour later each day and I go out and observe it to be true, I don't care if you don't believe my observation - if it is wrong then go make your own observation and show that it is wrong. It is either an observation that can be independently confirmed by others or it cannot. If it cannot, then it is of little value to the scientific community (e.g. the claims of cold fusion about 15 years back).

The problem today is that religion wants to corrupt the scientific process. The trailer made an interesting point, what do the scientists have to fear? The answer is the corruption of the scientific process. Religion wants its place in schools and sees the corruption of science as its best avenue. (Interesting note - I am not against religion in school. In fact, I think it should practically be a required subject. But, it should be objective and include multiple religions - it should not be promoting belief per se.)

Michael Behe, in his Intelligent Design book Darwin's Black Box, asserts as a scientific argument that the eye could not have evolved. But he can provide no scientific observation that supports this. He simply gives up and says it couldn't happen because it is too improbable because it would take too many steps. (In fact, many of his "calculations" are simply wrong.) Wow, that takes some thought. Let's just give up and fill that little black box with, you guessed it, God. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE. It is the height of laziness and ignorance to reach a question that you cannot answer and to give up and toss in God. In today's society, religious fundamentalists are attacking science, not the other way around. Again, science doesn't care what religion says. But, religion absolutely does seem to care about what science says these days. (Actually, that is not really something new - the "church" has always tried to control science.)

I actually ask the opposite question as Ben Stein, what do Christians have to fear from science? Are they afraid it will answer all the questions that religion once answered? Remember that the answer to the relative position of the Earth and the Sun used to be answered by religion. But not even the most uneducated Christian still believes the Sun revolves around the Earth. (How that fact came to be may be debated, but not the mechanics!) If God exists, I am quite sure that science cannot make her not exist. But, science also cannot prove that God exists - a point that I think many religion-corrupted scientists would like to believe is not true. Religious people simply need to realize that science and religion seek to answer different questions.

Even if science can answer the question about how we are here, it can never answer the question of why we are here.

Michael in NH

I think I touched a raw nerve...

You sound like you are trying to make science God -- as if scientists are infallible. Or are they just allowed to change their mind and their argument to suit the current societal whim? (I know, they're above all that, sort of super-human)

Even Einstein (I know, he's just some uninformed guy from the old days) believed that there is a God and if you can lay in your backyard on a dark night and stare into the heavens and contemplate how inconceivable the universe is and not believe in a creator that is way more significant than we mere mortals and scientists, you're lost.

[Hagler]

Kismet wrote:

Here is the bottom line for me on the Science v. Religion debates. Science doesn't care a whit what you believe. Really, belief has no part of the scientific process. Science is a process of asking questions and making observations.

Unfortunately, the Scientific Method no longer applies to any "scientific" investigation. Modern scientists have abandond it, in favor of whatever gets them a grant. They will do anything to get recognition. Repeatability and observation are key elements of the Scientific Method, and neither of them can be practiced with evolution. To believe in evolution, requires that you completely ignore the Scientific Method, and also ignore common sense. What you are left with are hunches, guesses, and speculation. To actually espouse evolution as a viable process of getting from nothingness to us requires faith in the force of Evolution. We all know that faith is not science, right?

Shawn

[AmBraCol]

I think I touched a raw nerve... You sound like you are trying to make science God.

You did touch a nerve. Kismet can't abide folks who believe in God and distrust those who adhere to a shaky, unproven theory. The irreducible complexity of many cellular structures is something that Darwin did not foresee, and is a major stumbling block in the way to attempt to prove his theory. And then there's the small problem of the source for the DNA code. It too is so complex that a belief in the possibility that DNA originated by chance requires far more faith than to believe that it was created.

[Kismet]

I think I touched a raw nerve... You sound like you are trying to make science God -- as if scientists are infallible, huh? Or are they just allowed to change their mind and their argument to suit whatever the current fad in society might be?

Even Einstein (I know, he's just some uninformed guy from the old days) believed that there is a God and if you can lay in your backyard on a dark night and stare into the heavens and contemplate how inconceivable the universe is and not believe in a creator that is way more significant the we mere mortals and scientists, you're lost.

You absolutely touched a raw nerve! This is one debate that is a pet peeve of mine. I am surprised that you can accept that Einstein believed in God, yet you still fear science.

I have never said scientists were infallible. Scientists change their answers all the time when they get new information. What they don't do is give up and say, gee, I guess God did it.

Finally, I just want to point out that you are the one suggest the equation of God and science can even exist. That is an absolutely absurd proposition unless your definition of God is bizarre. Science is not omnipotent, benevolent, tyrannical, or whatever other adjective you want to apply. I would certainly never begin to contend such an idea!

Michael in NH

[Tycer]

I don't always agree with Ben Stein, but... he sure tells you how he thinks on a subject. Looks like a very thought provoking movie. I'm sure I'll enjoy it, possibly on more levels than I currently think.

And, I agree with Paul, it appears as though some scientists are being told to clam up if they find something wrong with Darwinism; AND speak up about it. That same freedom to follow the evidence is necessary for science to answer questions. I don't believe that science and religion are necessarily mutually exclusive. Staunch belief in the correctness of anything without the facts to back it up make for bad science and religion.

Hear hear!

[AmBraCol]

I have never said scientists were infallible. Scientists change their answers all the time when they get new information. What they don't do is give up and say, gee, I guess God did it.

A true scientist would not eliminate any possibility, which is what you do when you say "give up and say, gee, I guess God did it." What the current "powers that be" are doing is exactly what you're doing - writing off any theory contrary to the one that they espouse. They do NOT allow people to question Darwin's theory or to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. They only allow people to follow evidence if it appears to lead away from God - because they presuppose the nonexistence of a supreme being who created anything at all.

See the movie. Perhaps you'll learn something.

[Kismet]

I think I touched a raw nerve... You sound like you are trying to make science God.

You did touch a nerve. Kismet can't abide folks who believe in God and distrust those who adhere to a shaky, unproven theory. The irreducible complexity of many cellular structures is something that Darwin did not foresee, and is a major stumbling block in the way to attempt to prove his theory. And then there's the small problem of the source for the DNA code. It too is so complex that a belief in the possibility that DNA originated by chance requires far more faith than to believe that it was created.

Wow, two posts in a row where your argument is reduced to repetition of what your religious community told you. First you direct me to the Focus on the Family, suggesting that I need to do some research. What you apparently mean is that I do some soul searching, because the Truth Project can only offer religion. Then you simply throw in some well-worn half-truths about what evolution shows.

I do like how you make it sound so reasonable as if "questioning and observing and analysis of the situation" will bring me into your flock. (That I needed to do some more research was your response to my first post on this site as well.) This time, though, I must question your scientific education. Notwithstanding the numerous people you can throw at me to rebut this point, most ID proponents are not well educated and are religious. Have you ever done more in evolutionary science than read articles by James Dobson?

As for the idea that scientific evidence could ever lead to God, that just shows your desire to corrupt the process. Science could never prove or disprove God. The two are simply not compatible. Why is it so hard to see that even if science does reach a black box in its theory of evolution, it will never say that God fills that black box. Religious people can say that, but that religious leap doesn't make the idea a scientific theory because that is not how science works! Unfortunately, that is exactly what the ID people are trying to do with a few well chosen aspects of evolution.

I love the idea that the odds of random DNA are so low that God is better answer for the origin of DNA because I have news for you. If you believe in God, God is a better answer for ANY question that you ask. Did I just type this stuff? No, God just typed it and made me self-aware at the exact moment I hit "submit." God is the easy way out of any difficult situation (though that is the foundation for its own post).

From Ben Stein's web site comes this article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00822.html

Take the time to read it - it is rather long. The author does a good job of articulating the views of both sides. Importantly, I think, the conclusion of the article seems to be that the "darwinists" and the ID proponents are simply not facing off on the same issue. ID folks are concerned with the moral implications of evolution, science is concerned with the corruption of the scientific process.

Michael in NH

[Kismet]

A true scientist would not eliminate any possibility, which is what you do when you say "give up and say, gee, I guess God did it."

I'm just curious, can you hypothesize any situation where science could prove God?

[Quick Karl]

A true scientist would not eliminate any possibility, which is what you do when you say "give up and say, gee, I guess God did it."

I'm just curious, can you hypothesize any situation where science could prove God?

I'm just curious, can you hypothesize any situation where science could DISprove God?

[Quick Karl]

Thank God (I mean Darwin) that Columbus didn't believe the 'scientists' of his day, who told him he would fall off the end of the earth...

[AmBraCol]

A true scientist would not eliminate any possibility, which is what you do when you say "give up and say, gee, I guess God did it."

I'm just curious, can you hypothesize any situation where science could prove God?

I never said I could. Nor can you disprove His existence. And you're making a lot of assumptions about me, my intent, education and a lot more. I never said that science can prove God's existence, but neither can it disprove His existence. You can attempt to make this about me, or any other person on the forum. But it comes back to two competing theories, only one of which can be right.

You can attempt to discredit The Truth Project if you want. However, you're doing the opposite. You say that all they can do is offer up God as an answer. And all you're doing is writing Him off.

As for the scientific process, you're either not listening to what the major proponents of darwinistic theory are saying, or you're really not familiar with what the true Scientific Method is about. Yes, I've read more about intelligent design than what Dobson may have written. In fact, I've never read anything written by him on the subject.

I'm not telling you you've got to believe like me or you're an idiot. I'm telling you that intelligent people also believe in God. Those who discount the possibility that He even exists maintaining that pure chance and circumstance and just plain bad luck caused the entire universe to arise from nothing and yet call us "superstitious fools" for believing in God are the ones who are truly superstitious.

[Kismet]

A true scientist would not eliminate any possibility, which is what you do when you say "give up and say, gee, I guess God did it."

I'm just curious, can you hypothesize any situation where science could prove God?

I'm just curious, can you hypothesize any situation where science could DISprove God?

[If God exists, I am quite sure that science cannot make her not exist.

Michael in NH

Science could never prove or disprove God.
Michael in NH

Wow Karl, thanks for engaging in this discussion by actually reading my posts. Is that the same level of care with which you evaluate the rest of your beliefs?

Michael in NH

[KirkD]

Well, I hate to admit this, and I hope everyone forgets it real soon, but I will confess under duress that I'm in the home stretch of a Ph.D. in Computational Biophysics, developing a method to identify, quantify, and analyze the functional information encoded in DNA and proteins. I would have to say that Kismet has confused Darwinian theory with science. Darwinian theory was good science back in the late 1800's when we knew nothing about genetics, but it is now probably the most falsified theory in science in the 21st century, yet people still clutch on to it. At best, it is very bad science. If you want to call variation evolution, then fine; no one ever disputed variation. But if you want to argue that we have descended from a lobed finned fish, I'm afraid that flies in the face of everything we are seeing in 21st century science.

Secondly, what Ben Stein addresses in his movie is only the tip of the iceberg. I've seen the kind of stuff he exposes in his movie first hand. There is only one thing keeping Darwinism alive, and that is atheism. For example, last week and this week, some of the most outspoken Darwinist scientists in Canada are guests of our local university atheist club. Just last week Richard Dawkins was in America doing what? ...... you guessed it! Attending an atheist convention. Darwinism is finally coming out of the closet. Atheism requires that life arose from purely natural and mindless processes. Darwinian theory has evolved from a fascinating 19th century theory to a 21st century religion wrapped in the garb of bad science.

Finally, 'junk DNA' is passé. The functional information that is encoded in the genomes of life demonstrates highly advanced algorithmic complexity. The only other place we observe that kind of functional complexity is in human languages and computer software, except the algorithmic complexity encoded in the genomes of life is considerably more advanced that any software we've ever written yet. Whoever encoded it is vastly more intelligent than us.

For an interesting article written for the layman, go to http://www.newscholars.com/papers/ID%20 ... rticle.pdf and have a good read.

[Kismet]

But it comes back to two competing theories, only one of which can be right.

I'm not telling you you've got to believe like me or you're an idiot. I'm telling you that intelligent people also believe in God. Those who discount the possibility that He even exists maintaining that pure chance and circumstance and just plain bad luck caused the entire universe to arise from nothing and yet call us "superstitious fools" for believing in God are the ones who are truly superstitious.

I am not meaning to call you an idiot either, I apologize if my last post questioning your scientific education sounded that way. Nor am I trying to make this about you or Karl. Right now you are the only one debating (and I have to go to bed)!

But, this is not about two competing scientific theories. ID proponents can try to continue that claim, but ID is a religious theory, plain and simple. If ID folks want to attack evolution scientifically they can try to do it, but not by simply saying, "I see the hand of God in this complexity," because that is not using science. And, as I just pointed out to Karl, from the beginning I have said that science cannot disprove God. Please reread my first post if you have that mistaken assumption.

I absolutely believe that extremely intelligent people can be religious, believe in God, and whatever else. I have never made a claim to the contrary. That does not mean, however, that I need to agree that intelligent, religious people should be allowed to corrupt science under the guise of a purely religious "scientific" theory.

Michael in NH

[Kismet]

For an interesting article written for the layman, go to http://www.newscholars.com/papers/ID%20 ... rticle.pdf and have a good read.

I will certainly read it. Just for the record, are you [the author]?

Michael in NH

[AmBraCol]

I would have to say that Kismet has confused Darwinian theory with science. Darwinian theory was good science back in the late 1800's when we knew nothing about genetics, but it is now probably the most falsified theory in science in the 21st century, yet people still clutch on to it. At best, it is very bad science. If you want to call variation evolution, then fine; no one ever disputed variation. But if you want to argue that we have descended from a lobed finned fish, I'm afraid that flies in the face of everything we are seeing in 21st century science.

Thank you, Kirk. You've got much better credentials than mine. I freely admit that I'm an amateur in the area of scientific investigation. Thanks for the input. I look forward to reading the article you posted.

[C. Cash]

There are no doubt a good number of impartial scientists out there, focusing on what they observe and not making wild suppositions. However, to pretend there is no agenda in the scientific community to own the arguement of truth, and in the process belittle notions of Biblical truth, is absurd. The field of Archaeology alone is rife with these folks, much less the life sciences, where Darwinism takes on a religeous fervor. Yes, there's bias at both ends of the arguement that you have to wade through to get at the truth.

Can anyone deny that many of the first scientists who discovered how our Universe operates were devout Christians... who in fact thought they were uncovering God's divine work? How about Kepler, the same man that figured out the math for how the solar system works? He taught his seminary students how the Lord had done it all. Can you imagine a man of his time figuring this out? Using his math today we can figure out the precise location of any individual planet/star going back for thousands of years, on any given day/time. To him it was obvious Who had done it and there was no conflict for him. Here is an interesting use of those principles to further bolster scripture:

www.bethlehemstar.net

Nope...all science can do in regard to the Christian faith is to bolster or to detract from it's claims. If looked at with open eyes, even a child can figure out quickly which way the evidence points.

And as far as Socialism working to provide social justice and equality among men, well, history does not show one instance of success that I'm aware of. The history of Socialism is that of murder, corruption and oppression. Under this system more innocent men, women and children have been murdered than any other..in the 20th century alone. Why it is even a viable option today is beyond belief. Why educated men and women fall for it still, is similarly beyond belief. Even us dumb Conservatives have that one figured out, having read a few history books on the matter(the ones not published by Berkley Press) . Anyway, I had to get that out. I feel better now.

BTW, Thanks for the heads up on this movie!

[handirifle]

I'll go see it also, and as far as I'm concerned, God is THE authority, be it morals, science or what ever. Not faith, but fact.

Discusion over. Someday according to God's word ALL will bow their knees to God, whether they believe in him or not.

[piller]

I studied engineering for 3 years before changing majors. I noticed that an unbreakable law of Physics states that everything in the universe must move toward maximum disorder unless acted upon by an outside force. This law of Physics is called the Law of Entropy. If evolution is going toward a more ordered, more complex creature, then what is the driving force? From a merely scientific viewpoint, the Theory of Evolution is not provable, and therefore should be re-evaluated. When in scientific study your theory is tested and cannot be proven, then you must re-evaluate it and come up with a new theory.

[Quick Karl]

A true scientist would not eliminate any possibility, which is what you do when you say "give up and say, gee, I guess God did it."

I'm just curious, can you hypothesize any situation where science could prove God?

I'm just curious, can you hypothesize any situation where science could DISprove God?

[If God exists, I am quite sure that science cannot make her not exist.

Michael in NH

Science could never prove or disprove God.
Michael in NH

Wow Karl, thanks for engaging in this discussion by actually reading my posts. Is that the same level of care with which you evaluate the rest of your beliefs?

Michael in NH

Kismet,

Frankly, no, I didn't bother reading any of your posts in their entirety, because you're acting like an a**hole.

[hillclimber]

Wow KirkD, you have presented this complex issue in a remarkably understandable way....Do not know if you have a religious affiliation, but the ability to think unencumbered by the intelligencia of the day will probably lead you to the inescapable conclusion that the the Bible is and has been right all along, and that the intelligent maker is found there..... again Wow...

[KirkD]

I will certainly read it. Just for the record, are you (the author)?

Kismet, I personally know the fellow who wrote that article, and he has experienced, first hand, what Ben Stein addresses in his movie. The author of the article has had correspondence sent to his university, suggesting that he be expelled from his Ph.D. program for the reason that he believes that there is evidence for an intelligent origin to biological life. Fortunately for the fellow who wrote the article, the university evaluates people on their performance which, in this case, is very good. The university also has regarded such nasty correspondence from certain hard core Darwinists as unethical and unwanted. To spare the university, his department, and his supervisor from having to endure a steady stream of nasty emails and very unethical correspondence, the fellow who wrote that article has used a pen name. Once he has completed his Ph.D., the fellow indicates that the pen name will be dropped.

[deerwhacker444]

A true scientist would not eliminate any possibility, which is what you do when you say "give up and say, gee, I guess God did it."

I'm just curious, can you hypothesize any situation where science could prove God?

I'm just curious, can you hypothesize any situation where science could DISprove God?

+1

[GANJIRO]

For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things.
Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen.
ROMANS 1:18-25

[Tycer]

For an interesting article written for the layman, go to http://www.newscholars.com/papers/ID%20 ... rticle.pdf and have a good read.

For the LAYMAN???

I enjoyed it very much.

I had to read the thing twice and it took me a couple more times with the formulas to wrap my mind around them.

Cool stuff. I would like to hear more as it stands the test of time. Please keep us posted as you can.

[TCB in TN]

Well, I hate to admit this, and I hope everyone forgets it real soon, but I will confess under duress that I'm in the home stretch of a Ph.D. in Computational Biophysics, developing a method to identify, quantify, and analyze the functional information encoded in DNA and proteins. I would have to say that Kismet has confused Darwinian theory with science. Darwinian theory was good science back in the late 1800's when we knew nothing about genetics, but it is now probably the most falsified theory in science in the 21st century, yet people still clutch on to it. At best, it is very bad science. If you want to call variation evolution, then fine; no one ever disputed variation. But if you want to argue that we have descended from a lobed finned fish, I'm afraid that flies in the face of everything we are seeing in 21st century science.

Secondly, what Ben Stein addresses in his movie is only the tip of the iceberg. I've seen the kind of stuff he exposes in his movie first hand. There is only one thing keeping Darwinism alive, and that is atheism. For example, last week and this week, some of the most outspoken Darwinist scientists in Canada are guests of our local university atheist club. Just last week Richard Dawkins was in America doing what? ...... you guessed it! Attending an atheist convention. Darwinism is finally coming out of the closet. Atheism requires that life arose from purely natural and mindless processes. Darwinian theory has evolved from a fascinating 19th century theory to a 21st century religion wrapped in the garb of bad science.

Finally, 'junk DNA' is passé. The functional information that is encoded in the genomes of life demonstrates highly advanced algorithmic complexity. The only other place we observe that kind of functional complexity is in human languages and computer software, except the algorithmic complexity encoded in the genomes of life is considerably more advanced that any software we've ever written yet. Whoever encoded it is vastly more intelligent than us.

For an interesting article written for the layman, go to http://www.newscholars.com/papers/ID%20 ... rticle.pdf and have a good read.

Wow, I am very jealous. I can only imagine the amazing things that you currently get to see, and the insights that you are gaining into the inner workings of life.

I am an amature and just have a very basic, practical working understanding of genetics, but I have always broke evolution down into two categories. Micro evolution, which I see as proven fact, and Macro evolution which I have yet to see truly convincing evidence for.

Micro or small scale evolution is where either you or nature decides that longer legs are better, and over time those genes are concentrated in the populations, and the end result is that the populations legs become longer. Many people refer to it as physical adaptation. I have used the principals of this myself (selective breeding) when breeding hogs, cattle, horses, and chickens.

Now Macro or large scale evolution is where fish became lizards, dinos into birds, and apes into humans, over time. I will refrain from pointing out my own concerns with the latter, especially with a much more fluent and well informed individual here. I am certain that any questions can be answered very well by KirkD.

[piller]

The micro-evolution, or selective breeding, is forced on nature by an outside force. In many cases, humans push it. What is the force behind Macro-Evolution, aka Darwinism? From the standpoint that it violates the Law of Entropy, it therefore cannot exist.

[TCB in TN]

The micro-evolution, or selective breeding, is forced on nature by an outside force. In many cases, humans push it. What is the force behind Macro-Evolution, aka Darwinism? From the standpoint that it violates the Law of Entropy, it therefore cannot exist.

No I don't think you are correct, that is unless you consider fire, flood, drought, changes in weather patterns, disease, and other natural occuring events, to be an outside force. Selective breeding is NOT forced on nature it is exactly how nature does work, whether done by humans or in nature is the same process. In nature it just happens to be driven by nature, as in which of these traits is the most suitable for survival in this environment. Now the fact that it is nature or my plan (such as the desire for a longer haired dog), is irrelevant. It is the exact same process. But that does NOT (at least in any real observable way that I can see) result in Macro-Evolution. I have NO idea what is supposed to be driving it, and I completely agree that Macro evolution seems to violate the "Law of Entrophy" (As I learned it the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).

[Kismet]

To those of you that do believe in Intelligent Design as a scientific theory I have a question. Assume that in the years to come that Intelligent Design becomes the operative theory of how the world came to be as it is ... do believe that such a theory would prove YOUR religious beliefs?

In lieu of waiting for an answer, I will tell you why I ask. Then if you want to respond you can address both the answer and what I see to be an issue.

As I understand the idea of ID, it would certainly not presume to suggest the nature of the intelligent designer. Therefore, it could be a malicious entity, a benevolent entity, a neutral entity, an entity no longer involved in any way, an entity only involved every few hundred million years, or many other possibilities. I don't think it could ever begin to prove God the father of Jesus, which I presume is the view of the majority of religious people here. I also don't believe ID seeks to prove Creationism (by which I mean the literal world of the bible being fact), which obviously is not compatible with any other understanding of the world.

If that is a correct understanding of ID (I'm sure someone more knowledgeable of ID will correct me if it isn't), will that kind of discovery satisfy you or will you still yearn for more?

My hunch is that such a result would be nice, but it would not answer many of the questions that religion seeks to address, such as why we might be here.

Michael in NH

[jd45]

Seems to me that in our exploration of the facets of "science", it must, of necessity, point to & substantiate, the existance of a Supreme Being Creator, IF one is intellectually honest. But that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? jd45

[Kismet]

Seems to me that in our exploration of the facets of "science", it must, of necessity, point to & substantiate, the existance of a Supreme Being Creator, IF one is intellectually honest. But that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? jd45

Do you maintain that is true if you don't start with the assumption that a Creator exists? If so, then can you explain your reasoning to me further?

Michael in NH

[KirkD]

My hunch is that such a result would be nice, but it would not answer many of the questions that religion seeks to address, such as why we might be here.
Michael in NH

Michael, you are right about that. A Creator of space-time, matter and energy and the laws of nature ... and of life itself, is compatible with a variety of philosophies and religions. To answer that question, we would need more info. I do believe that God has revealed Himself to humanity in Jesus Christ and given us the meaning of life, which is to experience real love between us and God and each other. We can begin that process by putting our faith in Jesus Christ for forgiveness for our own moral violations and for eternal life with God. Then we can experience the meaning of life. I realize that you may not be there yet, and that is something each person must work through, between them and God. If you do get a hankerin' to look into this more deeply, I can think of no better way than to go to the primary documents themselves and see what they say about Jesus. I'd recommend starting with the Gospel of Luke, continuing on with the Gospel of John, and then just keep going. I would have to say that I have experienced many of life's fine things, but the most fulfilling thing I have ever experienced, by far, is my relationship with God through Jesus Christ. He has changed me in ways I wasn't even trying to change, with Him, the sky is bluer, the grass is greener, the snowstorms (like the one we had today) are thrilling, and my ability to serve people has gone way beyond anything I have in myself.

[Quick Karl]

To those of you that do believe in Intelligent Design as a scientific theory I have a question. Assume that in the years to come that Intelligent Design becomes the operative theory of how the world came to be as it is ... do believe that such a theory would prove YOUR religious beliefs?

In lieu of waiting for an answer, I will tell you why I ask. Then if you want to respond you can address both the answer and what I see to be an issue.

As I understand the idea of ID, it would certainly not presume to suggest the nature of the intelligent designer. Therefore, it could be a malicious entity, a benevolent entity, a neutral entity, an entity no longer involved in any way, an entity only involved every few hundred million years, or many other possibilities. I don't think it could ever begin to prove God the father of Jesus, which I presume is the view of the majority of religious people here. I also don't believe ID seeks to prove Creationism (by which I mean the literal world of the bible being fact), which obviously is not compatible with any other understanding of the world.

If that is a correct understanding of ID (I'm sure someone more knowledgeable of ID will correct me if it isn't), will that kind of discovery satisfy you or will you still yearn for more?

My hunch is that such a result would be nice, but it would not answer many of the questions that religion seeks to address, such as why we might be here.

Michael in NH

I’ve come to the conclusion that Atheists and Darwinist have simply placed themselves at the pinnacle of ‘evolution’ and nature (comparing themselves to chimpanzees and such) and therefore are incapable of contemplating the incomprehensibility of a creator, in whatever form that creator may actually be, because it would then knock them off their high horse.

I like the big bang theory - everything that we know of just magically happened one day... from nothing! Poof, and a few years later here we are... but wait, we don't know where all that stuff came from nor do we know where lots of stuff went (dark matter?) but trust us, we're right!

Hey some people believe in VooDoo too...

[Kismet]

I’ve come to the conclusion that Atheists and Darwinist have simply placed themselves at the pinnacle of ‘evolution’ and nature (comparing themselves to chimpanzees and such) and therefore are incapable of contemplating the incomprehensibility of a creator, in whatever form that creator may be actually be, because it would then knock them off their high horse.

Well Karl, for that I can only speak for myself. I sure as hell hope that I am not the pinnacle of evolution! Especially given that the odds of all of us surviving for the next hundred years is pretty questionable, I don't think we are the end of the road.

Michael in NH

[Quick Karl]

My hunch is that such a result would be nice, but it would not answer many of the questions that religion seeks to address, such as why we might be here.
Michael in NH

Michael, you are right about that. A Creator of space-time, matter and energy and the laws of nature ... and of life itself, is compatible with a variety of philosophies and religions. To answer that question, we would need more info. I do believe that God has revealed Himself to humanity in Jesus Christ and given us the meaning of life, which is to experience real love between us and God and each other. We can begin that process by putting our faith in Jesus Christ for forgiveness for our own moral violations and for eternal life with God. Then we can experience the meaning of life. I realize that you may not be there yet, and that is something each person must work through, between them and God. If you do get a hankerin' to look into this more deeply, I can think of no better way than to go to the primary documents themselves and see what they say about Jesus. I'd recommend starting with the Gospel of Luke, continuing on with the Gospel of John, and then just keep going. I would have to say that I have experienced many of life's fine things, but the most fulfilling thing I have ever experienced, by far, is my relationship with God through Jesus Christ. He has changed me in ways I wasn't even trying to change, with Him, the sky is bluer, the grass is greener, the snowstorms (like the one we had today) are thrilling, and my ability to serve people has gone way beyond anything I have in myself.

Mr. Kirk, Sir,

You are one amazing gentleman, I am simply humbled.

Sincerely,

Karl

[KirkD]

Well, thank you Karl, but I'm just an old geezer trying to make his way through this life just like anyone else. I ain't nothing special, that's for sure, but thank you for the compliment.

[jd45]

Assumption? The term assumption implies a belief without evidence or substantiation. IF a person is intellectually honest, they'll observe any facet of what they see around them & be aware that an Intelligenent Being far above humans thought of, designed & built everything we come in contact with. jd45

[Swampman]

Religion is always the problem. That's why I'm a Christian and avoid religion at all cost. Atheism and Darwinism are just two more religions. I call them self/ego worship.

[Kismet]

A Creator of space-time, matter and energy and the laws of nature ... and of life itself, is compatible with a variety of philosophies and religions.

Kirk - I certainly appreciate your discussion in this matter. With you and some of your compatriots on this board (they know who they are), this has been an interesting discussion.

I don't think the religious "masses" (those numerous consumers who don't think deeply about the subject) realize what you state above. Even if they "defeat" the theory of evolution in science, such a result will not achieve their ultimate goal. That is perhaps part of what makes the debate so emotional. If, for example, the local school boards didn't get involved and let scientists resolve the matter (I'm not suggesting that it would be painless), I don't think the issue would become so divisive. (Obviously I stand firm in my belief that if ID has merit then it can prevail in the scientific marketplace of ideas without help from the pulpit.)

Michael in NH