tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post4322507124613653488..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Expelled trailerUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85399321101369610982008-04-30T00:03:00.000-05:002008-04-30T00:03:00.000-05:00bigham677, it looks to me like you've been collati...bigham677, it looks to me like you've been collating every single creationist canard you've ever heard and saving them up. Quite simply nothing you've said about evolution here is true. You have misunderstandings of the theory at the most fundamental level. Much of your criticism of evolution is a huge straw man, as you attack the theory for failing to be something it isn't, and making claims it doesn't make. "First cell" hypothesis? Not in reality, my friend. <BR/><BR/>Understand this. Evolution at its core is NOT "an explanation of how LIFE came to be." Evolution is not a theory dealing with the ultimate origins of life. That field of study, and it's quite a different one, is called abiogenesis.<BR/><BR/>Darwin's theory only explains how biodiversity occurred, how living things changed and developed, only after life already existed. And no, natural selection is not a "random" process.<BR/><BR/>I would suggest that you ought to learn more about what evolution really is — which is information that can only be gleaned from legitimate scientific sources, not creationist ones, which habitually spread falsehoods and disinformation — before thinking you're ready to criticize it. Some helpful online resources can be found <A HREF="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/" REL="nofollow">here</A> for starters.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84619644118511892792008-04-29T22:55:00.000-05:002008-04-29T22:55:00.000-05:00This discussion brings out so many issues that it'...This discussion brings out so many issues that it's impossible to do it any justice with a 3 paragraph comment.<BR/><BR/>However, saying that evolution is a scientific fact because it has been proven reliable when subjected to the "scientific method," is quite simply exaggerating.<BR/>The scientific method involves:<BR/>1. Observation of phenomena<BR/>2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena<BR/>3. Use of hypotheses to explain the existence of the phenomena, or predict results from new observations<BR/>4. Performance of experiments to test the predictions.<BR/><BR/>One of the most crucial underpinnings of evolutionary theory is the "first cell" hypotheses. However, applying the scientific method to this hypotheses, we recognize the fragility of the theory's underpinnings. For example, most of these hypotheses propose that the first primitive cell originated in some organic sea soup or some other nutrient rich environment. There could have been other events, such as lightning or volcanic eruptions, that sparked or provided the initial impetus for the cell's formation. Whatever the case, there was a RANDOMNESS to the whole affair because after all, there was no ONE directing or creating the system that gave birth to the first cell.<BR/><BR/>If this is true then the question we should ask ourselves is why a "cell", capable of self-reproduction, has not yet been created in a laboratory using just raw chemicals? To appreciate this question we must remember that we have state of the art technology that can create any kind of environment imaginable. We have barometric chambers that can simulate atmospheric pressures ranging from zero to several hundred bars. We have the ability to extract basic elements and recombine them into complex chemical compounds including organic compounds. We have the ability to create heat with lasers hotter than the surface of the sun, and should be able to easily infuse such energy into any organic environment. We have this and many great and astounding capabilities, but we still can not create one single puny viable cell in a sterile laboratory environment.<BR/><BR/>What supposedly happened in a RANDOM setting we have not been able to reproduce in a controlled experiment. What happened without any help or direction but with just mere RANDOMNESS to aid it, we cannot coax and direct into being using advanced technology and assisted by the most intelligent and creative scientific minds on this earth.<BR/><BR/>I find this very hard to BELIEVE.<BR/><BR/>Now you might say that I have unfairly picked a weakness in the theory and chosen to ignore other scientifically sound principles which stand up well under rigorous scientific examination. I acknowledge that strong evidence in the archaeological record and in other areas do exist.<BR/><BR/>However, the first cell is the first LIFE. Evolution at its core is an explanation of how LIFE came to be. This primordial question itself is the cause of all argument, disputes, rants, and ravings on this site and others.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, any scientific theory should strive for strong foundations and cohesiveness. One plus one is two and from this we can build to go on to integral calculus and differential equations. Undermine what 1 + 1 means and all of mathematics collapses on itself. Undermine RANDOMNESS as an explanation for the first LIFE and the pillar sustaining the theory collapses under weight of more complicated evolutionary principles.<BR/><BR/>If the foundation is not very strong then how can we say that that the theory is very scientific.<BR/><BR/>Now you will say that what Darwin observed in the finches, what the laboratory has confirmed with adaptation and survival of the fittest, and what archeology so clearly shows in the fossil record can not be disputed and is actually scientifically sound and true. Because of this, you say, we will have to assume that there is a reasonable scientific explanation for the first cell that has yet to be discovered. You have faith in this.<BR/><BR/>Well then, how are you different from the creationist. The creationist can not capture God in a laboratory and certainly can not coax God, while in a laboratory environment, into creating a universe in six days. The creationist simply believes that the hand of God was creating all observable phenomena and directing the beginnings of all LIFE.<BR/><BR/>If you as an evolutionist can jump the origins of life and not have to defend or explain with a sound scientific framework how LIFE first began, then why scorn the creationist when he takes that same leap of FAITH.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15228326757261507568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-74759023632496808182008-04-23T13:40:00.000-05:002008-04-23T13:40:00.000-05:00Take your cutpasting elsewhere, Samuel. Dumbski ha...Take your cutpasting elsewhere, Samuel. Dumbski has his own blog, and he can post his own drivel there without your help.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-52465156920934929782008-04-23T13:36:00.000-05:002008-04-23T13:36:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Samuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06172524164460065589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-29596657077709866822008-04-22T00:20:00.000-05:002008-04-22T00:20:00.000-05:00What's "belif"?I've seen huge crowds applaud Britn...What's "belif"?<BR/><BR/>I've seen huge crowds applaud Britney Spears and Benny Hinn. Big deal. People in this country have a habit of showering praise on the wrong people.<BR/><BR/><I>Ther are more of us than you think.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I know there are more uneducated people than educated people in the world. Tell me something new.<BR/><BR/>Feel free to agree with the movie all you like, dear. That won't change two salient facts: 1. Everything it claims is false. 2. Intelligent design is not science.<BR/><BR/>And I reserve the right to criticize anyone I choose, especially for what they believe, when what they believe is misguided, insupportable nonsense.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-5996239675609072572008-04-21T21:13:00.000-05:002008-04-21T21:13:00.000-05:00I'm going to see it. Not to mock it, but because I...I'm going to see it. Not to mock it, but because I agree with it and all of your slamming comments with profanity are proof that the athiest/darwinism system of belif is down the tubes.<BR/>Ther are more of us than you think. The last two times I saw it, the theatres were packed with people applauding Ben Stein. You would do well to stop criticizing other people for what they believe and realize that you're not smarter than anyone because you believe in 'science'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45601918075121684572008-04-21T18:30:00.000-05:002008-04-21T18:30:00.000-05:00It is not only order, but it is INFORMATION and we...<I>It is not only order, but it is INFORMATION and we've already covered this, information means INTELLIGENCE.</I><BR/><BR/>Assertions like that are not evidence, nor are they any kind of a theory.<BR/><BR/>And I think there are quite a few <A HREF="http://www.pcts.org/journal/young2002a.html" REL="nofollow">people</A> <A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI110.html" REL="nofollow">more</A> <A HREF="http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf" REL="nofollow">educated</A> <A HREF="http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/dembski.pdf" REL="nofollow">than you</A> who will explain to you in detail that "information theory" as applied to "intelligent design" is based on loads of false premises, and that Dembski's ideas in this regard are especially shoddy in their methodology.<BR/><BR/>Then again, being so brilliant, I'm sure you can show all these folks why they're wrong, and even go on to show where this "intelligence" itself came from, eh?<BR/><BR/>Until then, your juvenile tantrum-throwing over the fact I keep pwning your bullshit has gotten tiresome, and so your new nickname around here is "Banned." Go find something to do to get your anger out of your system, like taking your little brother's lunch money.<BR/><BR/>Hugs & kisses<BR/>SnowflakeMartinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53545101222319596242008-04-21T17:24:00.000-05:002008-04-21T17:24:00.000-05:00WOW, do people really believe what they write here...WOW, do people really believe what they write here or do they type without thinking? Lena don't argue with people over typing some people just don't get it. People must seek the truth, and if Martin believes what he is typing so be it, if kazim believes what he is typing so be it. Think to when you are going to be taking your last breath from this life, do you know in your heart truly where you are going? Have you spent time with loved ones when they are in that bed taking their last breath? It's comforting to know that you know in your heart where you are going, its scary to think that while you have time on this earth that some just won't listen. I pray for those that have ears and can not hear, I pray for those that have eyes and can not see, I know see myself that this is true. Be supportive, find out where these people are coming from, its interesting to see what people put into their filter system and what is real to them.dddssdirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12149256845424403532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-753313363990480692008-04-21T17:23:00.000-05:002008-04-21T17:23:00.000-05:00Snowflake? HA,ha,ha!I've got a new name for you Ge...Snowflake? HA,ha,ha!<BR/><BR/>I've got a new name for you Genius. It's,<BR/><BR/>"Snowflake the devout Materialist; Genius!"<BR/><BR/>Listen Snowflake,<BR/><BR/>I guess entropy was the wrong word. I didn't mean to get you going on some rant about thermodynamics, the "2LOT", and all the rest of that complicated science stuff. You know it just goes right over my head Snowflake. I suppose I could have used the word Chaos, but you probably would have gone on some cosmology rant, or I could have used Cacophony, but then we'd have to read about all of your knowledge regarding music and sounds. You'd probably say something brilliant like, "The wind whistles randomly sometimes as it blows", and how can I argue with that? But let me ask you a question Snowflake,<BR/><BR/>A snowflake is to a cell as Snowflake's intellect is to___________. Even the 5 year-olds can get this one.<BR/><BR/>You see Snowflake, it doesn't matter if we're talking about thermodynamics, cosmology, music, or whatever, we have never, ever, seen the type of order from randomness as the redundant, era correcting, self replicating, code in Deoxyribonucleic Acid. It is not only order, but it is INFORMATION and we've already covered this, information means INTELLIGENCE.<BR/><BR/>You of all people should understand this Snowflake. You have all this information and you believe it makes you intelligent. In fact, you try to bully and belittle anyone who doesn't have as much information as you, because they are less intelligent. You understand perfectly well that information means intelligence and this is exactly the point Ben Stein makes in his movie. We've only known about the information in DNA for about 1/2 a century and now that we know it is evidence of intelligence and a Intelligent Designer. It's the slamdunk, Snowflake!Samuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06172524164460065589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-200395042195720962008-04-20T23:40:00.000-05:002008-04-20T23:40:00.000-05:00Regarding Dawkins and directed panspermia: in an N...Regarding Dawkins and directed panspermia: in an NPR interview recorded last year, Dawkins said this about directed panspermia, after calling it "jokey":<BR/><BR/>"I don't really believe that's what happened on this planet. I don't think Francis Crick did, either. I believe that life did originate on this planet as a simple beginning by processes that we shall eventually understand lying in the laws of chemistry..."<BR/><BR/>Dawkins uses the same arguments and examples in many interviews, because they are true and they work to deliver his message. He attempted to use the same argument when he mentioned directed panspermia to the Expelled team, but they dishonestly edited out his point and instead claimed that he believes in directed panspermia (assumedly unaware that their lies are unintentionally exposed by his own contrary proclamations elsewhere!) If you want to hear what Dawkins was really talking about when he mentioned directed panspermia, listen to the full clip of this interview at NPR's website:<BR/><BR/>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9180871<BR/><BR/>Verity, I'm going to assume you come from a Christian/theistic background, in which case you may also be interested in listening to "Part II of the Discussion" (in the link above). In it, Francis Collins, a prominent scientist and a Christian who believes in God, explains that evolution and Christianity are not at odds. You may also be interested to hear some lectures by Ken Miller. Look up either of these names in YouTube or Google Video and I'm sure you'll find some recordings of lectures, etc. Coming from a Christian background myself, these two people really helped me drop my hostility toward arbitrary theological traditions and genuinely appreciate science. I hope they help you, too.paddling_ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06309920387989143468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-35432998736439511062008-04-20T14:31:00.000-05:002008-04-20T14:31:00.000-05:00As Lena mentioned, the ultimate goal of this movie...<I>As Lena mentioned, the ultimate goal of this movie is not to convert atheists into "believers", but rather to highlight and critique the all too familiar "zero-ID-tolerance" policy practiced in the scientific academia.</I><BR/><BR/>Then you should be aware that this "policy" the movie claims is in effect is one fat falsehood. Allow me to explain. <BR/><BR/>It <I>is</I> difficult for new ideas to get accepted into the scientific mainstream, it's true. That does not, however, translate, into a "zero-tolerance policy" or anything of the kind. The reason ID has not been accepted by the scientific community to date is that the proponents of ID <I>have not produced the work</I> necessary to validate their idea. There is no research, no evidence, no predictions that have been made and then satisfied by ID's claims. In short, ID is one big case of "Where's the beef?" And yet its proponents want it automatically accepted by the scientific mainstream and taught in classes, and whine about "suppression" when it is not. <BR/><BR/>In short, here's the basic difference. This is the process by which ideas usually gain acceptance in science:<BR/><BR/>Hypothesis --> Research --> Peer Review --> Scientific Consensus --> Textbook/Classrooms<BR/><BR/>Here's what the ID crowd wants for ID:<BR/><BR/>Hypothesis --------------> Textbook/Classrooms<BR/><BR/>Thing is, you don't get those kinds of shortcuts in science. The process of acceptance in the scientific community is <I>supposed to be hard</I>, because science deals with learning what the hard facts are, and -- here is the point that IDers find hard to accept -- <I>it doesn't care what your favorite religion or ideology is.</I> If you've got a million people with a holy book that declares the sky is orange, well, that belief won't change the fact the sky is blue, and there's no basis to teach the "orange sky theory" as an alternate in classrooms just because lots of people would rather believe that in contrast to what the actual evidence is.<BR/><BR/>The hard truth is, <A HREF="http://expelledexposed.com" REL="nofollow">you've been lied to</A>, Verity. And given that you seem to be a decent person (and you use a screen name, or maybe it's even your real name, like Verity), you should not be so quick to praise Ben Stein's "courage" in feeding you a heaping pile of self-serving, ideologically-based lies. What the makers of this film have done is both morally and factually indefensible.<BR/><BR/><I>First of all, I would like to comment on the purpose of science and its realm of expertise.</I><BR/><BR/>That's a bit presumptuous for someone who isn't a scientist to do, but let's see what you think science is.<BR/><BR/><I>Science is a tool used to observe the "things" around us. Beyond that, it has no authority. It cannot provide an answer for the theoretical question of where the very first "thing" came from, or shall I put it, how did something appear out of nothing?</I><BR/><BR/>I knew you were going to get it wrong, but I'll try to explain it in a straightforward way.<BR/><BR/>First off, you're right in implying, though you don't quite put it properly, that what science does is draw conclusions about the natural world through observation and experimentation. This does not mean that certain ideas are off limits. (Although, if your assertion that science "cannot provide an answer for the theoretical question of where the very first "thing" came from," then that would rule out ID as a scientific idea too, would it not?)<BR/><BR/>I agree with Dawkins in that, if a God exists and is responsible for the existence of the universe, how could that <I>not</I> be a question for scientific study?<BR/><BR/>But just because science hasn't found the answer to a question yet doesn't mean it never will, or that it's a question that is somehow "off limits." <BR/><BR/>Still, two things: 1) The ultimate origin of the universe question is entirely irrelevant, and indeed a completely different field of inquiry, to evolution. Evolution only deals with the development of species and organisms after they <I>already</I> exist. And 2) I can't speak for others, but I think the whole "ex nihilo" argument is rooted in a false premise and is completely stupid. I certainly don't argue as an atheist that "something came from nothing," and I don't know any intelligent person who does. Still, it's an irrelevant topic to the evolution issue, and when Ben Stein has asked, publicly (making a right fool of himself too), that if evolution is true "where did the laws of gravity come from," he's simply revealing himself to be a pig-ignorant idiot. And not someone worthy of your admiration. Evolution is not, and never has been, a field of science dealing with the universe's origins.<BR/><BR/>Your next mistake: <BR/><BR/><I>There are many "theories" proposed to answer this question of the origin of life that are accepted as valid by the scientific community, for instance the alien theory- that life first arrived on Earth in the form of an alien (an organism not from Earth).</I><BR/><BR/>Buzzzz. No, "panspermia" is <I>not an accepted scientific theory.</I> Allow me to repeat this so you don't miss it. "Panspermia" is <I>not an accepted scientific theory.</I><BR/><BR/>Remember, in science, an idea <I>only</I> gets to be called a theory once it has survived falsification and the evidence supporting it is so robust that it would be more foolish to continue to doubt it rather than accept it. Panspermia has not a lick of evidence, and is therefore not a scientific theory any more than ID.<BR/><BR/>Here you have fallen for one of the movie's more infantile deceptions. In Dawkins' interview, he brought up panspermia as one possible way in which something like ID could happen. But he did so to point out the idea was no better supported than the traditional religious concept of ID. Naturally, the producers wanted to make Dawkins look foolish, and edited the interview to make it sound like he was declaring a belief in aliens. This is just one example of the ethical failings of this movie, and Dawkins discusses it in more detail <A HREF="http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2480,Gods-and-earthlings,Richard-Dawkins" REL="nofollow">here</A>. <BR/><BR/><I>However, such reasoning is flawed because the alien theory seeks to provide an explanation for the origin of life from the "middle" of the story, not the beginning, which should be the aim of origin theories. If the first life on Earth came from an alien, the real question to ask is: from what was the alien life created? where did Earth come from? Where did the elements needed to create the Big Bang come from? How was something created from nothing?</I><BR/><BR/>You're quite right in that the "alien theory" (remember, not a theory) starts in the middle, and still requires explanation of where the aliens came from. <I>That was exactly the point Dawkins made that got cut from the film.</I> This is what Dawkins says in his editorial.<BR/><BR/><B>In fact, natural selection is the very opposite of a chance process, and it is the only ultimate explanation we know for complex, improbable things. Even if our species was created by space alien designers, those designers themselves would have to have arisen from simpler antecedents -- so they can't be an ultimate explanation for anything. No matter how god-like our interstellar aliens may be, and no matter how vast and wonderful their starships, they cannot have designed the universe because, like human engineers and all complex things, they are late arrivals in it.</B><BR/><BR/>See what you learn once you get away from Ben Stein's duplicity?<BR/><BR/>And here's the next point you miss. <I>ID also starts "in the middle,"</I> and still requires an explanation of where the intelligent designer, aka God, came from. IDer's can't get around that. Maybe they can when they preach from the pulpit, but they can't get around it in the scientific arena.<BR/><BR/><I>When a theory exists to explain the ultimate origin, it should literally, explain where that first life form came from and likewise, explain where the elements that created those first forms of life came from. If this fundamental question is ignored, surly it is not an adequate theory of origin.</I><BR/><BR/>Remember, evolution is <I>not</I> a theory of origin. Abiogenesis, the study of how life ultimately originated, is a different field altogether, and they don't have a theory yet. Furthermore, cosmological questions rooted in physics are also not related to evolution in any way.<BR/><BR/><I>...why should ID be excluded from the category of theories? ID can be equally (if not more)credible as any other theory of origin that serves to explain evolution.</I><BR/><BR/>It can be, but ID needs to <I>become a theory first</I>, rather than what it is now, a rather shaky hypothesis. I'll go one further and say that ID is really nothing more than the age-old "God of the Gaps" argument dressed up in pseudoscientific jargon. <BR/><BR/>But if ID has a good chance at becoming a legitimate scientific theory taught in classrooms, well, first they need to do the research and produce results. And this, they aren't doing. Their claims of being "expelled" are just a PR smokescreen to divert the public's attention away from the fact they aren't doing this research at all. <BR/><BR/>And here's perhaps the most vital point: that the reason science is rejecting ID at the moment is that they've let the cat out of the bag already. It has never been the goal of ID supporters to do scientific research to promote ID as science. "ID" as a concept was simply created as a sockpuppet for traditional Biblical creationism, to get Christian religious teachings presented in science classes in such a way as to avoid "the lemon test" and skirt any legal church-state separation issues. It was <I>never intended, even by its proponents</I>, to be pursued as a real field of scientific study and research.<BR/><BR/>The proof of this is in an internal memo of the Discovery Institute, leaked to the public, called the <A HREF="http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/crsc_wedge.html" REL="nofollow">Wedge Document</A>. The Wedge Document details a comprehensive PR strategy by which science will be undermined and replaced with religious teachings. The document is a wildly paranoid rant that openly declares its intent from the get-go.<BR/><BR/><B>The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy....<BR/><BR/>Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.</B><BR/><BR/>Later the document declares that scholarship and scientific research is only to be done in the interests of giving the appearance of scientific legitimacy and supporting their predetermined ideological goals. This right there invalidates the whole ID movement as scientifically valid, as science cannot be done simply in the furtherance of a political/social agenda. But the Discovery Institute doesn't care:<BR/><BR/><B>Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. A lesson we have learned from the history of science is that it is unnecessary to outnumber the opposing establishment. Scientific revolutions are usually staged by an initially small and relatively young group of scientists who are not blinded by the prevailing prejudices and who are able to do creative work at the pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which whole systems of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital witting and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.</B><BR/><BR/>So as you can see, these aren't scientists out pursuing scientific inquiry out of a desire to expand upon humanity's knowledge. These are fanatics with an ideological axe to grind, who have already declared the scientific mainstream their enemies and laid out their conclusions in advance. Call this what you will (I call it duplicitous fanatical lunacy), but <B>IT ISN'T SCIENCE</B>...full stop.<BR/><BR/>The claims of "persecution" coming from <I>Expelled</I> start to look a little different once you know the reality of the campaign behind them, do they not?<BR/><BR/>It was, in part, the Wedge Document that pulled back the curtain on ID and caused it to lose the Dover trial. Well, that, and having ID superstar Michael Behe admit under oath that in order for ID to be considered scientific, the definition of science would have to be broadened so as to include astrology didn't help.<BR/><BR/>Later on the Wedge Document lists "documentaries and other media productions" among "activities" designed to spread the ID "Destroy All Meterialism" campaign to the public. In other words, <I>Expelled</I> is just the latest salvo in a long-planned anti-science propaganda campaign. A pitifully inept one, too, in that they managed to let their manifesto get out to the world for all to see.<BR/><BR/><I>...but don't bash those who believe in BioLogos because when you bring it down to the heart of the theory, the basher's theory of origin rests upon an "I don't know" foundation whereas BioLogos, actually has an answer to the ultimate origin of everything: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God" (John 1:1).</I><BR/><BR/>Replace "God" in the above with "Invisible Cosmic Unicorn," and suddenly you'll see it's no explanation at all. You're just back to "God of the Gaps." And that isn't science, just religious apologetics. "BioLogos," a fancy term for "Goddidit," I'm sorry to say, is no "theory" in the scientific sense. You don't form scientific theories simply by tossing out quotes from ancient holy books. Let Francis Collins do some real research into it, and let's see it survive peer review, before we leap to taking it seriously.<BR/><BR/>You make not like that all the "bashers" have as alternative to "BioLogos" is "I don't know," Verity. But at least that's both honest and true. Francis Collins doesn't know, either. But he's plugging his God into that Gap regardless. Thing is, the honest thing to say when you don't yet know the correct answer to a question is "I don't know." It is not honest to make up an answer like [insert deity here] and declare yourself to have a better answer, or even an answer at all. Those of us who believe in doing science the right way, free of preconceived notions or a religious ideology to protect, may not get high public approval ratings for being less godly, but at least we're too honest simply to place our ignorance on an altar and call it "God."<BR/><BR/><I>I personally believe that science is a tool humans use to observe God's creations. For me, ID gives science a meaning and a purpose.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sorry to hear that you think the purpose of science is simply to validate an ancient religion you've already decided to believe in. If you look at the wonders of our natural world and the universe we live in, science has revealed so much that is so dazzling, and so far beyond anything any ancient holy book ever imagined, that to reduce the scope of what we've learned through science down to the shallow and impoverished view of life sold by religion is to do not only yourself but all of humanity and the whole universe a vast disservice.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-12900963007138250502008-04-20T04:50:00.000-05:002008-04-20T04:50:00.000-05:00I admire and applaud Ben Stein's courage in making...I admire and applaud Ben Stein's courage in making this documentary. As Lena mentioned, the ultimate goal of this movie is not to convert atheists into "believers", but rather to highlight and critique the all too familiar "zero-ID-tolerance" policy practiced in the scientific academia.<BR/><BR/>First of all, I would like to comment on the purpose of science and its realm of expertise. Science is a tool used to observe the "things" around us. Beyond that, it has no authority. It cannot provide an answer for the theoretical question of where the very first "thing" came from, or shall I put it, how did something appear out of nothing?<BR/><BR/>Thus, this is where ID comes in. There are many "theories" proposed to answer this question of the origin of life that are accepted as valid by the scientific community, for instance the alien theory- that life first arrived on Earth in the form of an alien (an organism not from Earth). <BR/><BR/>This is considered a "theory" because some scientists believe that theoretically, this can be tested, whereas ID cannot and therefore, ID should not be considered a theory. <BR/><BR/>However, such reasoning is flawed because the alien theory seeks to provide an explanation for the origin of life from the "middle" of the story, not the beginning, which should be the aim of origin theories. If the first life on Earth came from an alien, the real question to ask is: from what was the alien life created? where did Earth come from? Where did the elements needed to create the Big Bang come from? How was something created from nothing?<BR/><BR/>When a theory exists to explain the ultimate origin, it should literally, explain where that first life form came from and likewise, explain where the elements that created those first forms of life came from. If this fundamental question is ignored, surly it is not an adequate theory of origin.<BR/><BR/>So now that there is an explanation that indicates atheist scientists' theories of origin as equally "untestable" as ID, I'd like to question, why should ID be excluded from the category of theories? ID can be equally (if not more)credible as any other theory of origin that serves to explain evolution. <BR/><BR/>Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, claims that God may be the designer who uses evolution to create His creations. Pretty much, this theory, also known as BioLogos, explains how ID and evolution do not stand on polar ends but rather, stand side by side in mutual support for one another. <BR/><BR/>My point is, if some scientists want to believe that life came from aliens, backs of crystals, or leprechauns, then so be it; but don't bash those who believe in BioLogos because when you bring it down to the heart of the theory, the basher's theory of origin rests upon an "I don't know" foundation whereas BioLogos, actually has an answer to the ultimate origin of everything: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God" (John 1:1).<BR/><BR/>I personally believe that science is a tool humans use to observe God's creations. For me, ID gives science a meaning and a purpose. Therefore, I believe it is ignorant to assume that believing in the existence of God is equivalent to spurning science. To look more into BioLogos, please read the book, The Language of God by Francis Collins or his presentation on "The Language of God" given at UC Berkeley, available on the following YouTube site: http://youtube.com/watch?v=DjJAWuzno9YVerityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01592815653151948270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-36326595714901363122008-04-19T21:48:00.000-05:002008-04-19T21:48:00.000-05:00You're shitting me. The Second Law of Thermodynami...You're shitting me. <A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo" REL="nofollow">The Second Law of Thermodynamics?</A> That's what you've got?<BR/><BR/>You're right, Samuel, a five year old <I>would</I> tell me you don't get order from randomness. A five year old would also tell me his best friend is an invisible dragon. It makes sense you'd think a five year old was some kind of authority, since, like you, they're pretty much completely scientifically illiterate and know nothing of either biology or physics. But at least a five year old has the excuse of being five years old. Your continued stupidity is a little humiliating for you.<BR/><BR/>The 2LOT only applies to <I>closed</I> systems. The world is not a closed system, dude. Energy from the sun fuels the Earth's ecosystem. There more than enough of it to go around.<BR/><BR/>And as the example explains, even in nonliving systems, order randomly arises from disorder quite often. Or perhaps you've never seen a snowflake.<BR/><BR/>Really, Samuel, I knew you were in over your head here, but I didn't think you were such a clueless newbie as to try to pawn off creationist canards that are ten days older than Moses. At least try to grasp a few basic facts before arguing this stuff. And try to get them from legitimate scientific sources, too, not creationist ones. Those are put together by people either flagrantly dishonest, or as lacking in basic knowledge as you, and you're just going to keep getting a load of embarrassing misinformation from them.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-89081927647855073372008-04-19T20:27:00.000-05:002008-04-19T20:27:00.000-05:00"After all, if there's this slamdunk scientific th..."After all, if there's this slamdunk scientific theory of "intelligent design" that the Evil Nazi Darwinist Area 51 Black Helicopter Conspiracy is suppressing, why doesn't Ben Stein's idiot movie ever say what it is? Duhhh..."<BR/><BR/>The slamdunk is order Genius, in a world of entropy. It's simple and you don't have to be a Genius to get it. A 5 year-old can tell you, you don't get order from randomness, Genius.Samuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06172524164460065589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-88609676002561649942008-04-19T19:34:00.000-05:002008-04-19T19:34:00.000-05:00Christ, Samuel, are you still blathering about thi...Christ, Samuel, are you still blathering about this? As far as I can tell, your latest screed amounts to nothing more than, "I can't rebut you, so I'm going to throw a childish, petulant tantrum." All this smoke you're blowing about the "philosophy" of "materialism" amounts to sound and fury signifying nothing, and it's particularly silly coming from a guy who's pulling the old stunt of whipping out terms like "quantum mechanics" without even knowing what it is, and thinking that a load of speculative noise about alternate dimensions and the like supports his religious beliefs. (Seriously man, your whole rant just crashed and burned into completely incoherent nonsense there at the end.) <BR/><BR/>Your desire to compare creationists to Galileo just shows what a fucking rube you are, easily swayed by the most pitiful of lies as long as your self-pitying sense of victimhood is flattered. Get this into your tiny little mind: Galileo <I>had scientific evidence on his side</I>, intelligent design <I>doesn't.</I> After all, if there's this slamdunk scientific theory of "intelligent design" that the Evil Nazi Darwinist Area 51 Black Helicopter Conspiracy is suppressing, why doesn't Ben Stein's idiot movie ever <I>say what it is?</I> Duhhh...<BR/><BR/>Really, dude, you're just a moron, and your off-the-shelf brand of childish anti-intellectual religious hostility is neither original nor enlightening.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-65310277076914653282008-04-19T15:57:00.000-05:002008-04-19T15:57:00.000-05:00Martin is so smart! Can everybody see how smart Ma...Martin is so smart! Can everybody see how smart Martin is? "Mr. Scientist!" The only problem is, his science is rooted in philosophy. The philosophy of materialism, the belief the only thing we can truly know is matter, but how can you prove that? It's rhetorical and intellectual manipulation. Mike G, I do recommend you get a handle on your knowledge, because these rhetorical bullies will eat you up. You can't appeal to a heart that isn't there. I saw Ben Stein's movie last night and these guys are acting just like the Catholic Church when Galileo confirmed Copernicas. It's quit sad, and Thank God for Ben Stein for pointing it out. RNA world, Panspermia, HA! I like a good laugh now and then, but you've got to be kidding me. <BR/><BR/>Martin, you can shuffle and flip 5 cards 1 time or 1000000 times. Each time I'd bet you $5,000 that you don't get a royal flush, because you're right the odds don't change and every time the odds will be in my favor. There is no empirical evidence I can "show" you to prove Theo, and you have no empirical evidence to prove Atheo. The same faith I use to say Theo you use to say Atheo, but your faith is greater than mine, because you're going against the odds, and we are talking about much, much, much, greater odds than flipping a royal flush in the first five cards. Genius!<BR/><BR/>And don't talk about other life forms. That dramatically simplifies our experience. We are intelligent life (some of us are). That means we can create, communicate, and comprehend information. That is not my definition of intelligent life, but one of you most respected Prophets definition, Carl Sagan. In his Search for Extra-Terrestrial INTELLIGENCE his quest was two prong, transmit information into space, and listen to space for Signal, Order, Coded Information. That's Sagan's definition and it's a pretty good one. Do you know what DNA is, Genius? <BR/> <BR/>It's funny that you believe in other life forms, but it must be material life. That must be because you're blinded by your philosophy. I would think a great scientist like yourself would know that sub-atomic physics is handing the death blow to materialism. Quantum mechanics, general relativity, and the standard model prove our 3 spacial dimensions and TIME are just a portion of a greater reality. As Stephen Hawking says, the four dimensions we experience in our physical reality are flat, but there are at least another 7 transcending dimension that are rolled up. Those dimensions could have intelligent life. It wouldn't have to be physical or material life, and because of dimensional superiority who knows how we'd expience them? They could be made of the same properties as music. Is music real, or were you talking about little green men? Genius!Samuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06172524164460065589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-8789247618961487302008-04-19T12:40:00.000-05:002008-04-19T12:40:00.000-05:00MikeG: No one needs to "believe in" evolution any ...MikeG: No one needs to "believe in" evolution any more than they need to "believe in" gravity. Does evolution necessarily conflict with theism? Some people think so, others (like Kenneth Miller) don't. The point is, your lack of education in science coupled with your psychological need for a security blanket to hold on to do not constitute either evidence for your "Intelligent Being" or evidence against evolution.<BR/><BR/>You're at least a step ahead of many other Christians in that you admit your beliefs are based on emotional insecurities and not facts. But you still think those emotional insecurities have some bearing on facts, and they don't. Just because a belief system is comforting does not mean it is true.<BR/><BR/>I'm afraid that, by allowing your search for "something more" to end with ancient superstitions, you have blinded yourself to the greater wonder and pageantry of life that one can experience through science. For that, you have our sympathies.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17918022599305024722008-04-19T12:25:00.000-05:002008-04-19T12:25:00.000-05:00My friend's family is made up of faithful Scottish...My friend's family is made up of faithful Scottish drinkers. Although there came a time in his life where he felt he had to make his own decisions and in his searching for something else better to hold onto and find security in, he realized his family was right and that they reared him to believe in the right things, and most important, the right thing, a quality aged scotch.<BR/><BR/>There is nothing in this life to hold onto if you have no belief in a Higher Buzz. I challenge anyone who questions what my friend believes to find an aged scotch believing local pub in your area and experience what faith in quality oak barrel aging is all about!PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-51275989541633203012008-04-19T10:11:00.000-05:002008-04-19T10:11:00.000-05:00I make the following comment as a testimony: I w...I make the following comment as a testimony: <BR/> I was born into a Christian home and raised according to Christian values found in the scriptures. Yes, there have been times that I have questioned many of the things I was taught and told to believe. But there came a time in my life that I had to make a decision for myself. Would I follow the Christian teachings of my parents and church or follow after some other teaching that discredited God and His power. But in my searching for something else better to hold onto and find security in, I realized that my parents were right and that they had reared me to believe in the right things, and most important, the right person, God Almighty.<BR/> Now you can believe your idea of evolution all you want to. But friend, none of what you see and experience here on this earth happened by any accident. It took an Intelligent Being to put this all in place. I'm glad that I know that Intelligent Being is the God I serve. There is nothing in this life to hold onto if you have no belief in a Higher Power. I challenge anyone who questions what I say to find a Bible believing evangelical church in you area and experience what faith in God is all about!Mike Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12021699977875148384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1317944483151574862008-04-17T21:34:00.000-05:002008-04-17T21:34:00.000-05:00Uh, dude. Where in any of this bluster of yours is...Uh, dude. Where in any of this bluster of yours is any argument or evidence for design?<BR/><BR/>There's no reason the universe had to come together to be suitable for life forms like us. If it had come together differently, there would either be no life, or there might be life entirely different to what we know.<BR/><BR/>Everything you're saying presupposes humanity as the ultimate intent at the origin of the universe, whatever it was (and assuming it had one, we don't even have evidence for that). That's where you're going wrong. We're here, and good for us. But the universe wasn't made <I>for</I> us. It's a kind of species arrogance that makes people think the universe exists just so we can exist in it. We'll be extinct someday, and the universe will go on, not caring at all.<BR/><BR/>What do you think your bet will prove either way? Nothing. I could get a royal flush on the first hand dealt, or I could never get one in a million hands in a row. The mathematical odds would have been equal in any case. If I did get the flush first time out, it would not be evidence that my hand had been designed for me instead of a random luck of the draw.<BR/><BR/>You just keep not getting this basic point.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-30779369761733499062008-04-17T20:36:00.000-05:002008-04-17T20:36:00.000-05:00You're right Martin, I'm a simpleton and all that ...You're right Martin, I'm a simpleton and all that complicated statistics stuff just goes right over my head, but back to my original message on faith. You're 100% right you can get a royal flush on the first hand, but how much would you bet on that? I'd bet you $5000 you don't get a royal flush on the first hand. I'd bet you 5grand you don't get 3 of the 5 cards you need on the first hand. Please let me know if you have that much faith. If so, you've got much more faith than me and I'd love to take you up on that bet. Genius!Samuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06172524164460065589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-32289240038510441422008-04-17T19:28:00.000-05:002008-04-17T19:28:00.000-05:00You could play poker all your life and never get d...You could play poker all your life and never get dealt a royal flush, or you could play it for one day and get one on your first hand. So what? As usual, guys like you who don't know anything about probability have this dumb habit of thinking that probable odds are always evenly distributed. They aren't. And in any case, before your comment there collapsed into complete incoherence, the simple fact is you never said one single thing to rebut my point. (And I notice that the vast bulk of my comment appears to have been beyond your capacity to reply to.) You could be dealt a royal flush in a poker hand, or not, or you could get all but one of the cards needed, or none at all. The point is, if you <I>were</I> dealt a royal flush, the extreme improbability of that event would not mean <I>your hand had been designed for you</I>. Improbability, even extreme improbability, is not an argument in favor of design.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-10455356420799303842008-04-17T18:32:00.000-05:002008-04-17T18:32:00.000-05:00Honesty huh! Well how many times have you had a ro...Honesty huh! Well how many times have you had a royal flush? A royal flush, that's so funny. You could sit down and play poker for a month and not get close to a royal flush. Let's say for example you are playing draw poker and you have four cards that are leading to a royal flush, but you need one more card to do the trick, if you don't get that card you go from almost having a royal flush to having absolutely nothing. What you are proposing has much greater odds than a royal flush and we had to get all the cards. If one card is missing you've got nothing. You do know what nothing is or who nothing is? He seems like a pretty smart guy. Laughable!<BR/><BR/>And this idea that if not us than some other life form, right, because we see life everywhere outside of our planet, not to mention intelligent life, that is life that can create, communicate, and understand information. <BR/><BR/>I tell you what, you guys sure are good for laughs...Samuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06172524164460065589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37998989864342103552008-04-16T15:51:00.000-05:002008-04-16T15:51:00.000-05:00Well, Samuel, I guess you must think you really hi...Well, Samuel, I guess you must think you really hit us with a zinger. Sorry to pop your bubble, but there are just a few problems with your assumptions.<BR/><BR/>The ultimate origins of life may well still be a mystery. But that doesn't mean it's valid simply to plug in a god and go, "There! We solved it!" Indeed, a god opens up far more problems for theists than they care to admit, not the least of which is their problem of where this god came from, and who designed it.<BR/><BR/>You also have a problem in that your belief in teleology has led you to the mistaken assumption that the purpose of the universe was to produce humans. You say, "If any one of those events had not happened we would not be here and I think it takes very strong faith to believe that." But so what? If one of the causal events you cite had happened differently, maybe we wouldn't be here, that's true. But <I>some other lifeforms might</I>. You don't know. And it's simply anthropocentric arrogance to assume it's All About Us.<BR/><BR/>The "mathematical odds" argument is just nonsense, and proves nothing. Remember, every time you play cards, there is something like a sixty billion to one chance against you getting whatever hand you are dealt. If you play poker and you end up getting dealt a hand that happens to have a royal flush in it, you wouldn't say (unless you were kind of dumb), "Well, if any one of the cards in this hand had been anywhere in the deck other than where it was, I wouldn't have been dealt this royal flush, so it takes a lot of faith for me to believe my hand was not actually designed for me!"<BR/><BR/>Finally, why, if the universe is the product of an all-powerful God, would he need to have everything go through such a complicated series of causal events in order to get to us? Couldn't he have just snapped his holy fingers and poofed us all into existence the way we are today? If anything, this causal chain you mention is a really, really <I>bad</I> argument that there's a God behind everything. <BR/><BR/>So you see, we've thought about these issues a lot, and clearly more deeply than you have.<BR/><BR/>The honest answer to give when you don't know the real answer to a question is to say, "I don't know." It's not honest to make up an answer ("Goddidit!") instead. Atheists don't claim to have all the answers. All we claim is that we don't believe theism is the answer. We're just too honest to place our ignorance on an altar and call it "God." <BR/><BR/>It doesn't take faith to be an atheist, Samuel. Just honesty.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-67805526436556153542008-04-16T13:47:00.000-05:002008-04-16T13:47:00.000-05:00The events that occurred that brought about this p...The events that occurred that brought about this planet, life and us typing on this website may seem completely random but they're not. Each is in response to something else, which happened do to something else, etc. Was it set in motion by an intelligence? Who knows? Your answer to that really doesn't matter, for a believer should look at science as figuring out how this god did what he did. If you're a non-believer, you try to figure out how things happened. Same thing, no? The problem is in believing that this entity did things in a specific way and accepting that regardless of what evidence shows.<BR/><BR/>Btw, have you ever heard Douglas Adams' story about the puddle? It really addresses your question nicely. <A HREF="http://youtube.com/watch?v=hDC_NcihiV8&feature=related" REL="nofollow">Here it is on Youtube</A>. The whole thing is good, about 4 minutes, but the puddle bit is at 3:40PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.com