Opinion Talk

By RealityKing

April 23, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this

Absolutely.

During the last twenty years, the liberals have used media corrosion to replaced free inquiry with politically correct thought that matches their progressive agenda.

And just look at how far our education system has fall over the same period of time. Not to mention societies moral structure..

By gttim

April 23, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this

Evolution is a scientific theory that has stood up to scientific inquiry, been supported by physical experiments, and has been supported by other scientific theories. Science class needs to teach true scientific theory. Saying God made it has not been proven, cannot be proven, and is not supported by any other scientific theories. You can have all the free speech and free inquiry you want, but until a scientific theory has been proven, it has no place in a science class. Talk about it all you want, make your kids believe it, have your minister preach about it. Until it is proven, however, keep it out of school.

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this

At the end of the film Dawkins says that alien crystals formed creation. Now tell me this. After all the liberal screaming about how intelligent design is garbage can you really say that Dawkins is intelligent? The man, like many liberals, are misguided idiots. I would MUCH rather believe in God than to believe freakin alien crystals created us.

By AH

April 23, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this

Remember that a theory is just a theory. The next level is law and we are no where near the Law of Evolution.

It’s a shame that people can’t explore every possibility, regardless of how wrong they could be. Many of the greatest discoveries in human history have been when looking for something else. Science shouldn’t be corrupted like this. Many people equate non-Darwinist to flat earth people, but who is being close minded here?

By Scrappy

April 23, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

The Truth - Is it really that different to say Alien crystals than God? To a non believer niether one sounds very intelligent. The problem with these arguments is that religion / faith can’t seem to be left out. Teach science in science class and religion in your house of worship - even if that is believing in Alien crystals. I highly doubt that I would get a science lesson from the preacher on sunday, would I?

By SillyFool

April 23, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

Silly Fools who believe in Intelligent Design. If God was designing, wouldn’t he (she?) have come up with a better design for humans? We’re not smart, we’re not strong, we’re not fast, no fur to keep us warm, sweat glands hardly keep us cool, we’re susceptible to cancers, viruses, bacteria, germs, infections, etc.

By The

April 23, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

Truth is that my being here is a mere random chance. There is no intelligence in this design.

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this

Scrappy, You totally missed my point. My point is that liberals have ridiculed Christians for years about intelligent design while pushing atheism and evolution as fact. Where did I say that a preacher would be teaching science? Evolution is the ONLY theory taught in school and that is HARMFUL. That is a huge reason that parents are pulling their children out of public schools and away from liberal indoctrination. When teachers tell a religious student that God is not real and that he/she should denounce their faith that is when it gets dangerous.

By Carrie

April 23, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this

Man’s wisdom is foolishness in God’s eyes. Why do we always think there’s a better way?

By Rob

April 23, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this

Expelled does a good job of exposing the Darwinists intolerance of anyone who goes against their party line whether it be intelligent design proponents, self-organizationalists, structuralists, etc. It is an entrenched dogma.

Expelled does a less good job of telling people what intellignet design is. Most people think it means that things are so complex a higher power must have done it. Wrong. ID simply says that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause and that there is evidence in nature that shows this such as the amazing digital code in DNA or the miniature machines in cells. The official definition and loads more is at www.intelligentdesign.org. That site has links to a bunch of scientists, scholars and organizations that advocate intelligent design — some of whom were featured in Expelled.

By Rob

April 23, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this

Expelled does a good job of exposing the Darwinists intolerance of anyone who goes against their party line whether it be intelligent design proponents, self-organizationalists, structuralists, etc. It is an entrenched dogma.

Expelled does a less good job of telling people what intellignet design is. Most people think it means that things are so complex a higher power must have done it. Wrong. ID simply says that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause and that there is evidence in nature that shows this such as the amazing digital code in DNA or the miniature machines in cells. The official definition and loads more is at www.intelligentdesign.org. That site has links to a bunch of scientists, scholars and organizations that advocate intelligent design — some of whom were featured in Expelled.

By CNN word

April 23, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this

The question is not whether evolution occurs, but whether mutations occur.

DNA mutates. Period.

Read more, people.

By Bob

April 23, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this

Yes, he’s right. Darwinism is the religion of the Academy and you either accept it or get put out—if you’re a student, you get ridiculed and possibly flunked. If faculty, you get fired or denied publication (the practical equivalent) or face severe ostracization.

Of course, if anyone still thinks that our colleges and universities represent “higher” education, then the joke’s on us anyway. They long ago devolved (couldn’t help using that word…) into left-wing and anti-God ideological cauldrons and if we haven’t gotten that yet, we need to do some waking up.

By Smart One

April 23, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this

SillyFool, And yet we sit at the top of the food chain. I don’t know of any higher creature on the planet that used their brain to create medicine, soap, cities, airplanes etc…

By Fair and Balanced

April 23, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this

I say we need to be fair and balanced. We have done a lot of study of this Theory of Evolution and there is a lot left to do. First, we need to wait until some intelligent creatures evolve some more and then we’ll have some more data to examine. While we wait for that, I think we need to study this notion of a God some more. Let’s see. We’ve read all the good books on the subject and we have yet to turn up a holy grail or other meaningful artifact. So, I suppose we could ask people to be on the lookout for miracles and report any observations. Of course, thorough documentation is a pre-requisite for any meaningful discussion. Any other ideas. Any one want to tell us about their faith. Perhaps their faith is what they don’t want to tell us about. That might open up a whole new can of worms such as thou shalt not kill, let ye who is without sin cast the first stone, and other such things that come packaged with one’s faith.

By gttim

April 23, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

“Remember that a theory is just a theory”

Bzzzzzt! Somebody who did not pay attention in science class. See:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

“A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.”

Evolution has been proven and has been peer reviewed. God and ID have never been proven, much less peer reviewed. You have to prove God exists before you can prove he designed anything. Until you can, ID is a fairy tale and not science.

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

CNN word, I read about a CNN blogger that got fired for blogging. If you work at CNN I really do hope your boss finds out.

By the way, the article DOES NOT mention DNA mutations. It is you who should read and stay out of Obamas butthole. Also the question was, Is Stein right?

By spark

April 23, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

ID is speculation and not provable by scientific methods.

Evolution however is supported by ALL available data and the best scientific minds. As such it hasn’t been a “theory” for a long, long time.

By sane jane

April 23, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

I’m pretty liberal & don’t see a problem with this topic being explored. (I’m also a big Stein fan, wishing I could have Won His Money when I had the chance)

Are the liberals really screaming, or do conservatives just like to envision them screaming? Because I’m not really bothered by Stein’s seemingly sincere inquiry.

Either way, The Truth, calling a group of people who may not share your beliefs “misguided idiots” doesn’t add much substance to the conversation. Nor does it add to your credibility; it only makes you look like an angry person lashing out against concepts you may not understand.

By Crafty

April 23, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this

gttim, Maybe you should join your monkey family in Africa. I have yet to see a monkey turn in to a person. Well, then again, you fit the description of a monkey. God is a fairy tale? Ok, keep on telling yourself that. I’ll keep on believin!

By Crafty

April 23, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this

spark, last time I checked evolution was not fact. Where is the proof that we came from monkeys? Are you a scientist or did you see some special on PBS and pass it off as fact? Oh, and by the way, Global Warming is fiction as well as evolution. Al Gore got caught using footage from “day after tomorrow.” Guess you idiot libs can start making up excuses for that as well.

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this

I just don’t understand why I am so full of it. Someone please help me. I really need help. At least, I have learned that much or maybe I have evolved that much. What is The Truth. I need to know, I must know. Does anybody know. I don’t know.

By Copyleft

April 23, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

Yeah, it’s an outrage that only “actual science” is being taught in science classes! Where’s the fairy tales, darnit all?

So, to answer the question: Yes, Stein is right that “scientists” who reject Darwin are ridiculed. So are “scientists” who reject gravity and atoms, and “engineers” who claim to have built perpetual-motion machines in their basements.

Because they’re freakin’ WRONG! Get it?

Stein’s a smart and funny man, but he knows diddly-squat about science… and he HAD to know he was stooping to pathetic propaganda tactics in filming this hysterical nonsense. Holding scientists to a rigorous standard of actual evidence is akin to Nazism and death camps? REALLY? A Jewish intellectual is the one saying this?

Yikes, how embarrassing.

If you want to learn about this silly flick from people who ACTUALLY know what they’re talking about, check out http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

sane jane, I was referring to the ones who hate Christians and try to get God banned from being talked about. By the way, I have read many books on evolution so your comment about me not understanding evolution is wrong. And, I’m not angry.

By Copyleft

April 23, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this

Whisper to jane: “it only makes you look like an angry person lashing out against concepts you may not understand.”

Jane, that’s because TheLies IS an angry person lashing out at things he doesn’t understand. Most critics of evolution don’t understand it, as their comments illustrate. And they can’t be bothered to learn about it, either; they were just TOLD it’s evil, and that’s good enough for them.

Apparently, it’s a sin to use the brains God gave us. Ironic, eh?

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

Wow, someone is using my name to mock me. This is exactly what libs do. They can’t win an argument so they do crap like this. I’m betting that CNN word is behind this just like CNN is behind in the ratings.

By Logical Dude

April 23, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this

From what I have heard about this movie, it is about those expelled from the field based on their beliefs.
It does not ask evolutionists about “evolution” as that has strong scientific grounding. It asks how life began on earth, not how it evolved.
There is no evidence about how life began on earth, only hypotheses. Some say God, some say “accident”, some say alien seeding. The ones that say “God” take the easy way out because that is what they have been told. The ones that say “accident” don’t know which accident could have led to the beginnings of life. Those that say “alien seeding” then still need to explain where those aliens came from. So… no matter what you say, nobody will agree with you in all cases, and everybody looks stupid.

Now, when trying to find these answers that may not agree with the status quo, I do not believe they should be expelled, blackballed, or punished. If they have evidence, it should be presented. Now if they have no evidence and still draw conclusions, then they are not following the scientific method and should be reprimanded.

(I have not seen the movie, so I do not know the reasons behind those who were expelled, just guessing)

By TruthSeeker

April 23, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this

The documentary points out that our politically correct society is demanding scientists either adopt the party line or get out. We are losing the freedom of diversity of thought. Just ask the scientists that dispute the Global Warming Crisis how they feel when told the debate is over. The movie does not advocate teaching ID or creation in the classroom, just honesty that evolution is a theory that cannot answer what triggered that first spark of life. Closed minds cannot expand.

By CNN word

April 23, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this

I graduated from community college with an associate degree in custodial engineering. That makes me a scientific genius. Yeahhhhh, I’m a genius.!!!

By Fair and Balanced

April 23, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this

God can obviously be serious when he/she/it needs to be. How else could one explain all the things that have happened right here on earth or all the things out there in the universe. On the other side, God also obviously has quite a sense of humor. How else could one explain all the things that have happened right here on earth or all the things out there in the universe. The Truth is that the design could well have been simply very Crafty — meant to amuse a very bored being perhaps?

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this

Copyleft, yeah, you got me copyleft! Since you do have a degree in biology please feel free to explain evolution to me? I have read several books about evolution but according to you I don’t understand it. I’m guessing that you live in your mom’s basement and attend Dekalb Tech. Am I correct?

By Markus

April 23, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

Stein is just bitter because after a century of conservative ran campaign to keep creationism in schools, the scientific method has shown creationism (and ID) to consist of nothing more than hot air.

It is quite sad though that Stein uses images of the holocaust to make his vastly incorrect point. He ignores the centuries of prejudice that Jewish people had experienced in Europe, even prior to Darwin and the holocaust.

By gttim

April 23, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this

*”I have yet to see a monkey turn in to a person.”

&

“Where is the proof that we came from monkeys?”*

Again, more people who did not pay attention in science class. You won’t see a monkey turn into a person. Evolution happens over generations- many, many generations. It is evolution not spontaneous mutation. Evolution does not say we came from monkeys. Evolution says monkeys and humans share common ancestors. We evolved (‘cept maybe for you) into humans and they evolved into monkeys. The proof is in DNA. We share DNA. Where have you been?

“The documentary points out that our politically correct society is demanding scientists either adopt the party line or get out.”

That is wrong. Scientists demand that theories be proven by the scientific method. Unless that can be done it is only a conjecture or hypothesis- or fairy tale. Intelligent Design and creationism have never been proven- neither has the existence of God. They have no place in science.

By John

April 23, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this

Just a bunch of biased nothing from Stein…he ought to stick to crappy acting. The truth is Darwanism is only a small part of evolutionary theory. There has been a lot of work in the field since Darwin died, but the people out in the field doing the work never make the news because most people have to have some knowledge of biology, genetics, and anthropology to understand modern scientists. Intelligent Design doesn’t fit in anywhere in any scientific curriculum so these so called scientist should be run out of any accredited university…and another thing, unless they are all biologist (few of these dissenters are) then their opinion about biological evolution is no more valuable than that of a college business major.

By Alien Crystalizer

April 23, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this

Absolute truth be told, we were not formed of “alien crystals”, dirt, god’s breath, et al. Everything and EVERYBODY has its origin in the formation of stars. Hydrogen was the first element. That got really, really hot and started to create other elements, and so on, and so on. We are ALL made of stars, people.

By T. Huxley

April 23, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this

It takes only a moment Googling to find out that this film’s ‘martyrs to Darwinism’ were uniformly misrepresented. None had his/her life or career remotely ‘ruined.’ The ‘victim’ at the Smithsonian seems to have endured nothing more stressful than having to move his office — which was scheduled before the whole kerfuffle began! The only real question here is: ‘Ben Stein: Clueless or dishonest?’

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

gttim, Believe what you will. I believe that God created man in his own image and not from other animals. The Bible is crystal clear on that. Your little insult about me not “evolving” is great because I don’t believe in evolution in the first place. Where have I been? Well, I’m an intelligent person who can make up his own mind what to believe in. Death is enough to make me realize that evolution is not enough to believe in. We can argue over how earth and man were created but none of us has any control over our own lives. Make fun of me if you will but I am VERY comfortable in what I believe in and where I’m going when I die.

By jefinner

April 23, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this

I think all of us believe in God, whether you admit it to yourself or not. If you sit still and quiet for a bit instead of ranting and raving against everything, your heart will scream the truth. Believing in God certainly isn’t the “easy way”, but it is THE way. relax and listen to Him, then you’ll see. I hope you will “hear” Him like never before. I think it’s way cooler to know that He made you on purpose- just to be with you and love you.

By Alien Crystalizer

April 23, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this

Hey, “The Truth”. Do you even know the true origin of the bible? Do you know how many times it was edited by very rich, powerful, and ignoble men? Please, don’t hold the bible up as anything “factual”.

By ND

April 23, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this

The day intelligent design advocates come up with a plan to teach the Muslim creation theory, the Hindu creation theory, the Shinto creation theory, etc. in addition to the Christian creation theory in science classrooms then we can start talking about intelligent design in school.

Until then intelligent design is just another tool for Christian fundamentalists to try to satisfy their superiority complex.

By Markus

April 23, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

TheTruth, The difference between you and Ben Stein, is that you admit that you simply want to follow Biblical creation. Ben Stein however, is a fraud that wants to hide his motivations. The makers of this movie project their own religious motivations and claim that its the scientific establishment that is religious, simply because its theories are not compatible with special creation. This is evident again and again in the PR releases of Discovery Institute and various conservative opinions.

By AH

April 23, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this

Are we now siteing cheap wiki-websites http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

I payed attention in about 50 or so science classes and it was made abundantly clear that a theory was not the end all to a question. Laws are absolute where as a theory is more of a work in progress.

Also remember Global warming was supposedly peer reviewed but that didn’t make it true either.

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

I believe “The Truth” cannot prove any of his beliefs. He cannot even prove that God is a he versus a she versus an it versus a pigment on his imagination. Isn’t that the truth. Keep after this little brat, copyleft and others. He, she, or it needs to be put in he, she, or its place. I think “The Truth” sounds a lot like this other blogger that likes to use {{{{}}}} around words. So, what do you want to talk about, “The Truth”. About how boring your basement life is. About how boring your grade school life is. You are a bore. Come on, let’s see what you got, you little wimp. Can you get angry. I’ll bet you just cannot type the word “liberal” fast enough, can you? Ha.

By bob Ichter

April 23, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

If our world and everything is in it, MUST have a designer [ because anything so complicated, must have a designer ] and if that designer is “god”….then he must be even more “complicated”…so, if anything complicated must have a designer, who designed “god”…..this is a classic argument against ID called the watchmakers argument.

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this

Alien Crystalizer, The true origin of the Bible was from each writer of each book. John, Paul, Mark etc…used by God to write the gospels. I’ve heard and read liberal rants about being “rewritten” over and over again. Catholic priests used to forbid followers from reading the books. Also, if you hold evolution as “fact” I will indeed hold the Bible as fact. Again, it’s people like you who tell others what is truth and what are lies. All I said was what I believe. That is what I believe and you can believe that you came from a monkey or an alien crystal.

By Gigi

April 23, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

Thank you for this blog. We were unaware of this movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” From your description (The movie “uncovers that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure, even fired in some cases for the fact that they believe there is evidence of “design” in nature, challenging the idea that life is a result of random chance.”), sounds like a movie we would enjoy!!

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

To whomever stole my name, The Bible is my proof and can not be proven wrong. It’s the only book where prophecy has come true. Also, no, I live in a large city to the north of Atlanta and not in my mom’s basement. Little wimp? This from a person sitting at their computer at starbucks? You’re kidding, right? I wouldn’t call you a liberal. You’re a troglodyte or maybe a chode.

By Copyleft

April 23, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

TheLies, the problem is this: You want YOUR particular beliefs to be taught as “science,” despite the total lack of any supporting evidence.

And when scientists point this out, they’re accused of “narrow-mindedness”! Well, yeah; they insist on actual EVIDENCE, the big meanies. How unfair!

By thefisherman

April 23, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this

Darwinism is not a theory about the creation of life. Darwinism is a theory about the evolution of life.

And if you read Genesis, you will see that observed theory closely follows it. Light comes first(big bang), then land and water(planet formation), followed by the fish of the sea(first signs of life), fowl of the air(dinosaurs) and beast of the field. Man is created(evolves) last and is dominant over all others.

Sound familiar??

By Scrappy

April 23, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this

The Truth - I did not miss your point, I got it exactly. You can’t tell the difference between a liberal and a Christan! Someone can actually be both at the same time. ” Evolution is the ONLY theory taught in school and that is HARMFUL” Really? Don’t they also teach the theory of gravity? Or do you not believe in that one. If you are strong in your faith and pass it on to your kids, fine and great. But they also need to know that other viewpoints exist.

By Copyleft

April 23, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

(P.S. to anyone who wants to understand science: If it “can’t be proven wrong,” it’s NOT SCIENCE. And it therefore has no place in a science class. Get it?)

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

CopyRat, When did I say that I wanted my views to be taught in science class? You, like all the other atheists, have taken my words out of context. A classic liberal tactic. And, I have not heard ONE story where scientists have been called “narrow-minded” by ANY christian. It’s always libs who call anyone who doesn’t agree with them, narrow-minded. The Real problem is that liberals want God out of everything in life. That’s the real problem with people like you. I’m more than willing to debate you or any other lib.

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

The Truth! You can’t handle The Truth. The Truth is that no one knows The Truth. No one can even prove The Truth. So, how can there be A Lie. If you kill someone, will you go to hell. What if the Old Testament is The Truth and the New Testament is A Lie or vice versa. What if the Muslims are the true keepers of the faith. What if the Atheists are. What if there really are witches. What if every single thought of every single person had to be correct by design. Would an intelligent design allow anything else. Did you know there really are aliens. I’ve seen them. There are legal aliens and illegal aliens and extraterrestrial aliens. There really is an area 51 and a Roswell. But, I ramble about The Truth.

By Speed Racer

April 23, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this

If you were an archaeologist, and you happened upon the ruins of ancient buildings half covered with jungle vines, would you believe that those buildings just “evolved” there or that some intelligent beings designed and built them?

The human body might be the most complex machine ever to exist, yet we are supposed to believe that the human body just evolved from some single-celled organisms over the past ever how many millions of years.

Which belief seems the most convulted?

By gttim

April 23, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this

“The true origin of the Bible was from each writer of each book. John, Paul, Mark etc…used by God to write the gospels.”

Bzzzzt!

The Bible has many orgins- the old testament different from the new testament. And if you study The Bible, you will learn that there were more than 4 gospels, of the 4 you cite there are many different versions or early translations, and that the ones of the early canon that were used were the ones the Catholic Church chose to use- and that was not really begun to be decided until 400 AD and not articulated until the 1500’s.

I see problems with chain of evidence.

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this

I’m The Truth and The Truth cannot prove me wrong. You cannot handle The Truth, The Truth. Now, prove you are The Truth. You cannot. Prophecies are nothing. Nostradamus knew more about The Truth than The Truth knows about himself.

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this

Scrappy, You can be a liberal and a Christian? Really? How? Because it’s been my experience that liberals have such disdain for Christians and the Bible. I can easily tell he difference between a liberal and a Christian. This is an argument for another time. Anyway, my whole point is that science teachers in schools and colleges have taught that Christianity and ID are garbage and that evolution is fact. I know this because I went to a very liberal school that taught that.

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this

gttim, As I wrote. John, Paul, etc… I didn’t want to write EVERY SINGLE person who wrote them. Yes, there have been many translations but in context they are all the same. The first three books in the Bible are in the Jewish Torah. I already understand your point by here is mine. I believe the Bible to be 100% true and I stand by that. I’m not forcing it on you or anyone else.

So, go Bzzzzt yourself?

By Jerry Springer

April 23, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this

I have a problem with anyone vehemently defending any point. Generally people fail to be open minded and need to convince everyone else that they are right. There will always be extremists unwilling to accept any other answer and point out the flaws in every faith or logically based argument.

The fact that this discussion deteriorated to personal insults and generalization of liberals and conservatives bothers me.

Have your beliefs, by they logical or religious, and accept that others may not agree… or maybe I’m just dreaming that people don’t latch on to drama and insults instead of accept each other as they are.

By Dr. P Reding

April 23, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

It is clear from the current science that Darwin’s Theory is only conjecture, not Law or fact. If you understand genetics and the phenominal odds against random mutations being favored, you will not believe in Darwin’s ideas. Perhaps a thousand gene sequences would have to change simultaneously within a single generation to effect a coordinated change for Darwinian evolution to be possible.

I recall as a child laughing at the idea of “Spontaneous generation” yet Darwin’s theory is closer to spontaneous generation than it is to progressive evolution.

If there was a spontaneous generation, this would in fact be an act of an intelligent designer, i.e. God.

In all, There is no convincing evidence supporting the tremendous leaps in evolution from the fossil record. There is no support from statistics nor logic that explains a Darwinian evolution, without a kick start from an intelligent designer.

It is easier to believe that I can jump to outerspace with the power of my legs than to believe in Darwinian Evolution. My 12 year old son fantacizes about super powers and power rings. This sounds similar to our scientific community fanticizing about the super powers of Darwinian evolution.

Darwinian Theory is a keen idea, but so are transporter beams to travel between space and earth.

By Dr. P Reding

April 23, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this

It is clear from the current science that Darwin’s Theory is only conjecture, not Law or fact. If you understand genetics and the phenominal odds against random mutations being favored, you will not believe in Darwin’s ideas. Perhaps a thousand gene sequences would have to change simultaneously within a single generation to effect a coordinated change for Darwinian evolution to be possible.

I recall as a child laughing at the idea of “Spontaneous generation” yet Darwin’s theory is closer to spontaneous generation than it is to progressive evolution.

If there was a spontaneous generation, this would in fact be an act of an intelligent designer, i.e. God.

In all, There is no convincing evidence supporting the tremendous leaps in evolution from the fossil record. There is no support from statistics nor logic that explains a Darwinian evolution, without a kick start from an intelligent designer.

It is easier to believe that I can jump to outerspace with the power of my legs than to believe in Darwinian Evolution. My 12 year old son fantacizes about super powers and power rings. This sounds similar to our scientific community fanticizing about the super powers of Darwinian evolution.

Darwinian Theory is a keen idea, but so are transporter beams to travel between space and earth.

By Jerry Springer

April 23, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this

It’s unfortunately that The Truth had such a bad experience. Its these that paint our perceptions and stereotypes of who people are.

Why can’t you be a liberal and a Christian? To assume you can’t subscribes to a narrow definition of both.

It’s one thing to question Christianity and Science, it’s another to call either “garbage”. That doesn’t do anyone any good, all it does is raise tempers.

By Winston Smith

April 23, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this

Folks, The question is not whether one theory or another is true, it’s about the scientific process. Has the Scientific community become the church of the middle ages, burning heretics at the stake?

By Jesus

April 23, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

If you don’t understand earthly things…, how can you possibly understand heavenly things??

By Fair and Balanced

April 23, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this

I don’t understand what this blogger using the label “The Truth” hopes to accomplish by posting hate all the time. Did you see the way this “person” started off the discussion about the book “Slavery by Another Name”. The truth is that this person using this label “The Truth” is simply unfit to participate in any meaningful discussion.

So, what’s the ruckus about Ben Stein anyway. Is this new work of his supposed to be taken as a comedy or is he trying to pull off A Convenient Truth of sorts? I can still hear that monotone voice from Ferris Bueller…

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this

Fair and Balanced, Maybe you need glasses. Where did I bring up slavery? IF you had any common sense then you would know that someone else has been using my name posting stupid crap in my name. I’m unfit to discus this topic? Typical moronic liberal.

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this

Fair and Balanced, Also, what hate do you speak of? I’ve read through all my comments and not once did I post any “hate” comments. I love people like you because you never actually read comments and instead, write rhetoric condemning someone. If you can’t even decipher what the article is about then it is you who are unfit to discuss the topic. Go back to your pizza delivery job.

By FGOHJ

April 23, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this

THE - YOU ARE RIGHT - THERE IS NO INTELLIGENCE IN YOUR DESIGN

By Fair and Balanced

April 23, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this

Person using the label “The Truth”: First, you don’t have to use the word “hate” to be hateful. You are a hateful person. Second: Go back and read or have someone read your words to you and explain them to you. Third: I love pizza. Fourth: You maroon. Fifth: You forgot to call me a liberal in your second post.

Ha. You pathetic excuse for a human. Oops. I don’t really have proof that you are human. You might be an alien. An illegal alien. An illegal liberal moronic pizza selling alien with a need to spew things like stupid crap liberal moron. What else you got?

By Willie

April 23, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this

In 2000 years from now, after all the doomsday believers are proven right, there is a book found under a rock explaining the theory of evolution and the beginnings of mankind. Could we then accept the theory of evolution? Over two thousand years ago we saw a Man do miraculous things and we deny it today. Does this Man have to do it everyday to persuade you?

By gttim

April 23, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this

“It is clear from the current science that Darwin’s Theory is only conjecture, not Law or fact.”

Bzzzzzt!

It is scientific theory, it has been proven. Law and theory are actually closely related. There is a law of gravity, and there are also scientific theories about gravity that are proven using the scientific method. Scientific theories are proven.

“If you understand genetics and the phenominal odds against random mutations being favored, you will not believe in Darwin’s ideas.”

Bzzzzzzt!

Actually if you understand genetics and random mutation, you would not make that statement.

“Has the Scientific community become the church of the middle ages, burning heretics at the stake?”

No, the scientific community is only saying that to teach something as science, you have to prove it is true through the scientific method. They don’t care if you teach ID at church, but do not expect to have it taught at schools by science teachers until it can be proven, like evolution has been. Most scientists could care less what you think as a person, they just do not want science diluted and polluted by unproven conjectures.

By Captain Freedom

April 23, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

THE Captain wishes to point out that gravity is also “just” a theory, standing unsteadily alongside the theory that germs cause disease. Such scientific tyranny shall not stand.

There is one and only one truth, and it is revealed in the Holy Noodly Appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this

Fair and Balanced, I did go back and read my comments. As I’ve stated before, I did not bring up slavery. You’re a troglodyte. I didn’t call you a liberal because I believe that you may be illiterate. I want my pizza by 5. Also, you are a bit of a hypocrite in calling me hateful when you yourself are calling me a moron. Pathetic? Not really, I just love irritating idiots like yourself.

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this

Here is the first five in a list of ten reasons ways in which the critics of Expelled (as well as other neo-Darwinist apologists) are helping to promote the theory of intelligent design.

1 By remaining completely ignorant about ID while knocking down strawman versions of the theory. — Whether due to intellectual snobbery or mental laziness, too many critics of ID never bother to understand what the term means, much less learn the general tenets of the theory. Instead, they knock down a strawman version of ID that they have gleaned from other, equally ill-informed, critics. The belligerent or paranoid advocates of ID will assume that the misrepresentation is due to dishonesty or a conspiracy by the neo-Darwinists. But even those who are more charitable will agree that when a critic misrepresents the theory, it undermines their own credibility. 2 By claiming that ID is stealth creationism. — Resorting to this red herring is one of the most common arguments made against ID. While it’s true that ID could be used to promote a particular religious agenda, this is not a sufficient argument against it being a legitimate scientific research program. There is no a priori reason why a research program could not be completely in adherence to accepted scientific methods and yet be completely compatible with a particular religious viewpoint.

But it also refuses to acknowledge the vast majority of people throughout history have believed in at least a basic form of creationism. Most people believe that some form of intelligent being (i.e., God) created the universe and everything in it. For most of these people, creationism is not a derogatory term. The phrase “stealth creationism” might appeal to the pseudo-intellectuals (those who know almost nothing about science but do know that they despise “fundamentalist Christians”) yet for most ordinary people it sounds like bigoted nonsense.

3 By resorting to “science of the gaps” arguments. — Critics of ID often claim that the theory relies on a “God of the Gaps” argument. (Don’t understand how something occurred? Claim God did it. Case closed.) As scientific reasoning, this method is obviously flawed. Yet the critics of ID often resort to the same tactic, only instead of saying “God did it” they claim “Science will find it.”

The problem is that this almost never happens. Closing a “science gap” almost always leads to the discovery of other, even more difficult to explain gaps in knowledge. For example, when evolution was first proposed by Darwin, there was no explanation for the mechanism of transmission of traits from one generation to the next. With the discovery of DNA, Watson and Crick closed that particular gap.

But as physicist David Snoke notes, no one today has an adequate explanation for how this highly complicated molecule arose out of nowhere. Also, we do not have an adequate explanation within chemical evolutionary theory for the appearance of the mechanism that gives us a readout of the information, or for the appearance of methods that replicate information with out error, or for the appearance of the delicate balance of repair and maintenance of the molecular systems that use the information stored in DNA.

Scientific discoveries tend to find that nature is even more complex than we imagined which makes it even more unlikely that process like undirected natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift are sufficient explanations.

4 By claiming that ID isn’t science since it’s not published peer-reviewed literature…and then refusing to allow publications of ID papers in peer-reviewed journals. — The hypocrisy of snubbing ID because it lacks peer-review was exposed throughout Expelled. One example was the treatment of Richard Sternberg, a journal editor who made the career-killing mistake of actually publishing an article that was sympathetic to ID.

The resulting controversy exposed just how close-minded some scientists were to criticisms of neo-Darwinism. As Sternberg—who is not himself an advocate of ID—said after the incident, “It’s fascinating how the ‘creationist’ label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community.”

5 By making claims that natural selection/sexual selection is responsible for all behaviors and biological features. — Instead of saying that “God created X”, Darwinists tend to claim that “Sex selection created X.” Take, for instance, this statement made by zoologist Richard Dawkins: "Why did humans lose their body hair? Why did they start walking on their hind legs? Why did they develop big brains? I think that the answer to all three questions is sexual selection," Dawkins said. Hairlessness advertises your health to potential mates, he explained. The less hair you have on your body, the less real estate you make available to lice and other ectoparasites. Of course, it was worth keeping the hair on our heads to protect against sunstroke, which can be very dangerous in Africa, where we evolved. As for the hair in our armpits and pubic regions, that was probably retained because it helps disseminate "pheromones," airborne scent signals that still play a bigger role in our sex lives than most of us realize.

Why did we lose our body hair? Sex selection. Why do we retain some body hair? Yep, sex selection. Why do humans walk on two legs? Again, the same answer, sex selection. Why do dogs walk on all four? You guessed it, sex selection.

The same goes for human behavior. Hardly a week goes by that some newspaper or magazine article does not include a story claiming how “evolution” is the reason humans do X, avoid Y, or prefer Z.

Even scientists grow weary of hearing such faith claims presented as if was “science.” As Philip S. Skell, emeritus professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, noted in The Scientist:

Darwinian explanations for [human behavior] are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self- centered and aggressive - except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed - except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.

Even those who flunked high school biology can see that when a theory can be used to prove any behavior that it ceases to be science and enters the realm of faith. Yet when evolutionists make such claims they are often flummoxed by the public’s skeptical reaction. They can’t understand how we could be so stupid as to not accept their claims. And we wonder how they could be so stupid as to think we are really that gullible.

By Fair and Balanced

April 23, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this

Person using the false label “The Truth”, just give me your pizza order along with your credit card number, social security number (to prove you are who you say you are and it better say “The Truth” when I pull up your Pizza Hut files), your telephone number, and your current residence. Our records show that you are currently residing in your mother’s basement. Is that still The Truth. You do believe that I work for Pizza Hut, don’t you. Come on you little p** ant, surely you have something more challenging than this garbage. Give me something to work with. Troglodyte? Is that the best you can do. Stick some more “liberals” in with your posts. How about liberal troglodyte. Come on hypocrite. Hateful. I called you a moron. You called me one first. So there, little child. I’m waiting. Show me some intelligent design.

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this

Fair and Balanced, When did Dominos start wanting SS numbers? Mom’s basement? I believe I used that on you a while ago. Way to go moron. You don’t have one original thought in your mind. Carrots have higher IQ’s than you do. Troglodyte is pretty close to what you are. Well, almost because a troglodyte is a bit brighter than you. I’d love for you to deliver a pizza to my house. I’d have something waiting on you at the door in the shape of a nine iron. Maybe that would knock some intelligence in to your unintelligent brain.

By skeptic

April 23, 2008 5:14 PM | Link to this

from jennifer:

I think all of us believe in God, whether you admit it to yourself or not.<<

Well I think no one really believes in God and if they really stop and think about it they will come to admit it.

So there.

By Mike k.

April 23, 2008 5:17 PM | Link to this

I’m curious to see The Truth’s list of books he has read regarding evolution. The Truth, could you post a list of them here?

By Kevin

April 23, 2008 5:20 PM | Link to this

Hey gttim, I will renounce Christianity all together once there is any evidence of life coming from non life.

All evidence points toward an intelligent designer.

By dbm

April 23, 2008 5:24 PM | Link to this

Intelligent design is a copout. It amounts to saying “We can’t figure out yet how this could have evolved, so we’ll just chalk it up to intelligent design.” Actually, biologists have probably made more progress than some people think in figuring out how things could have evolved.

AH: A scientific “theory” is the highest level of proof in science. Any scientific law is part of a scientific theory. All science is always a work in progress.

Speed Racer: If I saw buildings copulating with each other and thereby making baby buildings, I might believe they could have evolved.

By high school physics teacher

April 23, 2008 5:44 PM | Link to this

I hate to intrude upon this delightful intellectual dialog, but there is no difference between “law” and “theory” in science. Scientists use these terms interchangeably. I know that the non-science types don’t like to hear this, but it would make my job a lot more productive if we raised a generation of kids who were not as clueless about this as their parents.

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 5:46 PM | Link to this

Mike k., Here you go, numb nuts.

Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors—by Carl Sagan and Anne Druyan.

Cosmos —by Carl Sagan

Evolution and the Myth of Creationism—by Tim M. Berra

The Blind Watchmaker—by Richard Dawkins

IS that enough for you? I don’t have to answer or show you anything but since you think I’m a fraud I can safely say that you have been put in your place.

dbm, A copout? Really? Because believing that you came from a monkey or alien crystals is pretty far out there for my taste. Biologist are still confused about the THEORY of evolution. It is not fact like some of you wannabe scientist on this blog.

By AH

April 23, 2008 6:00 PM | Link to this

Just because some lazy scientist use terms interchangeable doesn’t make it so.

Us engineer types like to be precise when we use terms. There is now room for gray area in science. If you don’t have the full answer you keep looking and evolution is not the full answer, it is part of the answer but not the end game.

By drtim

April 23, 2008 6:01 PM | Link to this

Captain Freedom oints out that gravity is “also JUST a theory”. yet, we KNOW the rate at which gravity pulls on an object. It is repeatable, predictable. The “Germ Theory” is flawed at best. And applied with dangerous certainty.

To say that Darwin’s Evolution is “fact” lacks intellectual depth OR honesty. There are far too many holes and missing links for it to be “fact”. FACT implies that there are NO unanswered questions.

I agree with ‘gttim’ when he says that “Until it is proven, however, keep it out of school.” Look, there’s SO much for kids to learn in middle and high school WHY make the classroom an ideological battlefield? Just, LEAVE THE ORIGIN OF LIFE OUT OF THE CURRICULUM UNTIL COLLEGE!

By ScottN

April 23, 2008 6:27 PM | Link to this

dbm pretty much hits the nail on the head.

“Laws” in science usually describe some understanding of phenomena in a succinct manner. However, laws are not an expression of a unassailable truth higher than “theory.” Classic example: Newton’s universal law of gravitation isn’t accurate for very large masses or objects moving at a high fraction of the speed of light. You have to use Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity.

Many comments have been made about how evolution has never been “proven.” Others have responded, but it bears repeating, nothing in science is ever “proven.” All knowledge is provisional and is subject to modification in the face of new evidence.

With regard to Expelled: the truth of the matter is that if you investigate the movie beyond its shoddy and superficial storytelling, you find that the claims of the so-called “expelled” people are little more than whining about being criticized or thinly-veiled persecution complexes.

Reality is this: Evolution is one of the most successful, well-supported scientific theories ever. Biology, paeleontology, biochemistry, genetics and other branches of science all provide masses of evidence for it. If you are ignorant of the evidence, that doesn’t make it any less solid of a theory.

Reality is also this: Intelligent Design Creationism is not science. It makes no predictions, performs no experiments, explains nothing and adds nothing to our growing body of knowledge. Stein and the legion of dishonest people promoting ID can gnash their teeth all they want, but they aren’t being held back by some sinister cabal of liberal atheist scientists. They’re holding themselves back because they don’t even bother trying to participate in the scientific process. (ID “scientists” don’t even bother to publish in their own journals.)

By Bob

April 23, 2008 7:35 PM | Link to this

The problem is neither side of this question will give the correct and honest answer: “I don’t really know”.

By Fair and Balanced

April 23, 2008 7:45 PM | Link to this

Is that idiot calling himself The Truth still here spouting off. I see he still can’t get his facts straight. Now get up out of your mommy’s basement and get some fresh air, boy. What are you waiting on? Come on. I thought you were going to show me some intelligent design. Show me what you got there? I’m back from supper and ready to see what those bony little fingers of yours can do. By the way, where did you want me to send that Dominos application. You must be hurt to be rejected by Pizza Hut. Keep trying. Your mommy really needs her basement back. She told me that 40 years of you was more than any one person should have to deal with. Also, I see you found all that junk that I posted on Wikipedia. I knew you would take the bait and cut-and-paste it. Keep up the good work, kid.

By Dave

April 23, 2008 8:03 PM | Link to this

Funny how those that “believe” in a “fake” thing up in the sky somewhere LOVE to try and take swipes at science. It makes sense. For every single thing that is shown to be a lie in the bible (and there are many), they need to come out swinging at science to show that “fact” is indeed fiction. It’s clear that the world is NOT 6000-10,000 years old (which is the age according to that fable)… so if we show that THAT is not true…then NONE of it is true. They can never give an “inch” when we show all the facts to be nothing more than fiction…

Hey…Noah had an ark right?!

Cool….

how many gays did he bring along?

also…if we all come from Adam and Eve… and everyone died except for Naoh and his slut (i mean er…wife…unless he TOO was gay)… that means ALL moderen man comes from Naoh, NOT adam and eve…

Well…guess what you “talibangelicals”….gays are Still GAY…and best of all…ABORTION is STILL LEGAL!

Too bad gays don’t need to get abortions…which is why you should love them…hahahahaha!!!!

As always…talibangelicals logic is faulty… It comes down to a fear of death. Thinking (or a need) that life goes on forever. That the NEXT life is better than this one. That’s the sad part…if they cared about THIS life instead of worrying about the “make-believe” one…the world would truly be a better place…

ALL religions share that…the “fear of death” thing…they ALL have this fake “vision” of a “next” place they are going to. Get over ut…death is not a bad thing. We ALL die. When you do…it will be just like before you were born…nothing…blank…and to be honest…quite peaceful…for me…i won’t have to listen to any of you nuts anymore!

Let’s see….Santa: not real, Easter Bunny: not real, Boogy Man under the bed: not real….psssssst…i think your parents forgot to tell you this one…god is not real either!!! ;-)

By The Truth

April 23, 2008 8:06 PM | Link to this

Fair and Balanced, I do believe that you are the dumbest person on this blog. Try going back and reading all those points about evolution. Maybe you should get your boyfriends schlong out of your mouth long enough to actually read. Maybe his spooge is covering too much of eyes. Use a tissue to wipe your eyes and read my comments before pmsing all over the blog. I didn’t think you could be any more of a loser but here you are.

By The Way We Were

April 23, 2008 8:12 PM | Link to this

Hello, ScottN. Finally, someone that actually mentions the subject matter. Reading the posts by “The Truth” was really boring — but entertaining in its own way. Anyway, I have not seen the movie. Is this movie worth seeing in your opinion? Were you left with the impression that it was perhaps a spoof on something that Moore, for example, has done before? Did you feel a connection with anyone’s story or did it sound like a bunch of whining?

By Lee

April 23, 2008 8:17 PM | Link to this

Scrappy

Where were you when the LAW of Gravity was taught? Newtons law of gravity. did an apple hit you in the head as it fell from a tree?

By Fair and Balanced

April 23, 2008 8:20 PM | Link to this

Now that’s the blogger using the false name “The Truth” that I have come to know so well. I knew your inner self could be brought back out again as I have managed to do over and over and over. You are so easy. Thank you for another cheap thrill. Now I’ll let you be until I decide to have my way with you again. Good evening my little pet.

By Chuck Darwin

April 23, 2008 8:31 PM | Link to this

gttim- I must have been absent from school on the day that science dis-proved the existence of God…which day was that?

BTW, are you aware that one individual who didn’t believe in the THEORY of evolution was Charles Darwin?

He died appalled that a religion had sprung from the questions that he had posed in his youth, and that he had been made the “messiah” of it.

By Lee

April 23, 2008 9:03 PM | Link to this

Theory and law are far from being the same interchangable terms Theory = 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
4. contemplation or speculation.
5. guess or conjecture. Basic Simplistic some would say but definitely the basis for the definition of Theory.

By Dave

April 23, 2008 9:14 PM | Link to this

Chuck…got proof there IS a god…show me. Oh…BTW…show me how YOUR god is any better or different than ALL other gods. Is it just becuause you were born to parents that believed in THAT boogy man? I/m sure if you were born in Saudi Arabia you’d believe in another make believe story book fable type thing floating in the air. Except at least in THAT religion..when you get to this place called heaven…you got head from 14 virgins…me? i like that story best! ;-0

By dbm

April 23, 2008 9:18 PM | Link to this

Intelligent design is a copout. It amounts to saying “We can’t figure out yet how this could have evolved, so we’ll just chalk it up to intelligent design.” Actually, biologists have probably made more progress than some people think in figuring out how things could have evolved.

AH: A scientific “theory” is the highest level of proof in science. Any scientific law is part of a scientific theory. All science is always a work in progress.

Speed Racer: If I saw buildings copulating with each other and thereby making baby buildings, I might believe they could have evolved.

By Dave

April 23, 2008 9:28 PM | Link to this

You know how I KNOW that evolution is a reliable theory? Because the very same “idiots” that believe that Iraq had something to do with 9-11 (or EVER believed that), and that Iraq also had WMD’s….well they TOO believe in un-intelligent design!

Can someone PLEASE answer my question about Naoh’s ark from above? If everyone died…are not Naoh and his wife the ones we are all related to?

Gays are STILL gay….abortion is STILL legal…AMEN!

By Oz

April 23, 2008 9:29 PM | Link to this

OK. Enough name calling.

Scientific theories are different from what, in normal conversation, most would call a theory (most ideas that are called “theories” in casual conversation are hypotheses in the scientific sense). Scientific theories are generally supported by extensive experimentation and observations. All scientific theories are testable. If an idea is not testable, it falls out of the realm of science.

The first question I would ask is: Is Intelligent Design testable? What experiment can be performed that will produce a result that supports the hypothesis of Intelligent Design?

I have done some searching and have not found any studies that are much more than opinion on “statistical analysis”. Most of these “statistical analyses” ignore the fact that certain traits are advantageous over others. So even though the development of the eye is statistically unlikely, the driving force that would greatly improve its chances of development is the advantage an organism would have if it had a group of cells that could detect light and react to it as in sea stars (star fish for you old schoolers).

Another generality is that scientific theories are predictive. For example, the cell theory predicts that if we find any living thing, it will be composed of one or more cells. So far we have not found any organisms that are alive but not made of cells. The day we do, we will reject the cell theory.

The theory of evolution predicts that we will see a change in a group of organisms (population) over a long period of time due to changing environmental conditions. An example might be that a population of bacteria will become resistant to an antibiotic if it is repeatedly exposed to that drug.

With this in mind, my second question is: What does the hypothesis of Intelligent Design predict?

If Intelligent Design cannot be supported by extensive experimental evidence and is not predictive, then it cannot be a scientific theory.

By the way, you will not find any scientist worth his DNA that will tell you conclusively that there is no God. The hypothesis that there is no God cannot be demonstrated by scientific methods, therefore has no scientific support. The idea of God or any other “higher intelligence” falls out of the realm of science and into the realm of faith. While explanations of “higher intelligence” may seem logical, it cannot be demonstrated scientifically.

You can belive science and keep your faith.

By Lee

April 23, 2008 9:42 PM | Link to this

Dave Are you or are you not glad that your mother did not have an abortion or are you just glad your girlfriend did to get you out of your obligation and responsibility? you should be ashamed!

By Dave

April 23, 2008 10:02 PM | Link to this

ashamed for making fun of a fable? no… it’s YOU that should be ashamed for believing….

By By Love

April 23, 2008 10:15 PM | Link to this

I believe that the question was whether or not scientific inquiry into “Intelligent Design” was being stymied, or blocked. I can only say , of course not. How can investigation of the unprovable be blocked? How can there be any study of it at all?

By By Love

April 23, 2008 10:32 PM | Link to this

Concerning the “infallible” nature of the bible, Noah’s Ark is a direct rip-off of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was written at least a thousand years earlier. And, if a vegetable can sense light, what is so “miraculous” about the eye that it HAD to be “designed”?

By C Baxter

April 23, 2008 10:54 PM | Link to this

There is much chatter about God versus science in the previous postings…this film is really about Liberty…and very clearly, very articulately Mr. Stein has illustrated that LIBERTY (ours) is truly under assault…as for God, I am certain he’ll sort it out in the end. In the present, let’s preserve Liberty…a great many have already paid the ultimate price that we might chatter freely.

By erpilot

April 23, 2008 11:00 PM | Link to this

Those who seem to believe the THEORY of evolution have done little to examine the gaping holes in the THEORY. Science has shown the CHANCE of a naturalistic creation to be 1 in 10 to the 40th power, i.e., impossible. Darwin posited there should be many transition fossils showing one species evolving to another. The British Museum of Natural History has billions of fossils, but NONE that are transition! (none exist) The theory falls flat in so many ways: how did the transition to a gilled species occur? (Or to one with lungs?). Gilled cannot survive on land and lungs cannot survive in water. How did a cell appear? The simplest cell must be able to ingest, excrete, and reproduce. How did that happen? DNA has as much information as Microsoft Windows or Apple’s leopard. How did DNA come about? There is no evolutionary theory for “information”. If one is honest, one must admit that those who hold evolution to be true do so because they hold a naturalistic worldview. A worldview is the lens through which we view the world. The worldview determines how we hear the lyrics to the songs, the TV shows we watch, the values we hold. The naturalistic worldview is simply untenable, and we are seeing its effects in the society in which we live.

It’s been said that in 100 years, society will look back at today’s views and laugh at the ignorance “science” tried to foist upon society. Many of us are laughing today, yet crying at the level to which our society has fallen. Pick up a newspaper on any day, read the headlines, and read what a naturalistic worldview actually looks like. It’s been written that the gas chambers of Auschwitz weren’t the result of a crazed politician, but the result of philosophers and professors in the German universities. An honest, intellectual study has difficulty finding the words of the Bible to be anything other then true. Those words have survived for 6,000 years. I’ll put my faith there (Oh, a definition of faith: years ago a tightrope walker was going to push a wheel barrow on a rope strung across the Snake River Gorge. One may “believe” he can do it, however, “faith” is getting in the wheel barrow. Faith is a strong conviction of what one knows to be true. Those who believe in Jesus, the Son of God, are in the wheel barrow.

God Bless!

By ScottN

April 24, 2008 12:16 AM | Link to this

The Way we Were asked:

“Anyway, I have not seen the movie. Is this movie worth seeing in your opinion? Were you left with the impression that it was perhaps a spoof on something that Moore, for example, has done before? Did you feel a connection with anyone’s story or did it sound like a bunch of whining?”

I don’t think it’s a spoof, but what I’ve read about it suggests that the makers tried to do it similarly to Moore’s “style”, such as that is.

To be perfectly clear, I haven’t seen it either, and I have no intention of doing so. Nothing I have seen in reviews from first-hand accounts suggests that it’s anything else than recycled creationist arguments and a thinly veiled implication that Hitler and the Nazis were a result of Darwin’s theory. Besides all that, most reviews I’ve seen say that it commits the deadliest sin of all for a movie: it’s boring.

Actually, I think there will only be a couple of types of people that see the movie: the first type being “the bible is inerrant” people and the second being the pro-science activists concerned about the first type trying to return us to the dark ages. Everyone else will stay away in droves.

See the movie if you’re really curious, but I suggest that you approach it with some skepticism and look a bit deeper at the claims the “victims” make in the movie.

Criticism is not persecution.

By Believe

April 24, 2008 12:40 AM | Link to this

How is it so hard to understand that Noah himself descended from Adam? So yes, we can all still be descendants of Adam and also descendants of Noah…not complicated.

By God

April 24, 2008 1:35 AM | Link to this

Hello everyone, GOD speaking.

Well of course, as you all should know but somehow don’t (a flaw in your creation that i didn’t expect. Hell, I’m perfect so ignore that last statement!)I created two kinds of people in my grand plan. The liberals and the conservatives. The liberals were put here to create the illusion of intelligence so that i could tell my flying spaghetti monster deity buddy who rules the universe across that road how proud i was of my creations. I have a bumper sticker on my interstellar chariot that says, “my smart liberal creations won the science fair at the deity convention this year” The conservatives where put here to create the illusion that I was The only deity in existence. Post offices across the world send me billions of letters each year which hum the tune, “Dear God, I really need a million dollars so i can have the house i always dreamed of.” This kinda p** me off because since the beginning of time, that damned santa clause, another deity ruling the corner universe, has snuck into my universe via the worm hole chimney and given people the idea that deities give them stuff if they pray for it. My creations ain’t what I thought they would be but I sure do have fun watching them suffer Ha Ha HAAAAAA!

By Dr. P Reding

April 24, 2008 3:40 AM | Link to this

One kind person offered that.. “The theory of evolution predicts that we will see a change in a group of organisms (population) over a long period of time due to changing environmental conditions. An example might be that a population of bacteria will become resistant to an antibiotic if it is repeatedly exposed to that drug.”

Please consider that Evolution goes beyond adaptation within a species. Evolution is the changing of one species into another species. There is extensive evidence of Adaptive changes. It is in the theory of evolution, expecting one species to change into another, that the evidence is thread bare.

The human mind likes to have an answer. One likes to have an explanation for the way things are. Evolution gives us a nice answer, just that there is nothing near proof. If you progress from nucleic pairing (4^3) to code for amino acids, and Amino acid chains forming proteins (26^200) on average and proteins coding for x 100000^nth new genes and multiple genes causing new form or function (y^z) - the likelihood of random chance causing a new species exceeds the number of atoms on earth by an unfathonable amount. ( 4^3 * 26^200 * 100000^nth * y^z = ???? very big number for first new form or function) (the numbers are offered only to show that one is talking about phenominally large numbers not just one in a million. If you disagree by a hundred trillion this will not change the drift.)

On the other hand the bible is not a textbook of science. For some it gives an answer.

In the end one can cling to either belief or both at the same time.

As a physician and scientist I see no conflict between the bible and science. Speaking only for myself, I see no definitive proof for or against evolution in either science or the bible. Evolution neither conficts nor supports the bible. God, as I perceive him, is clever enough to create the universe by any means that humors him.

Maybe its okay if we do not know how it all started.

By Lowell Gray

April 24, 2008 7:09 AM | Link to this

My human father raised me to know that when in a discussion I resorted to “name calling” or “profanity” I was showing that my intellect was deficient - Please, lets have dialogue and try to understand one another.

By GaryM

April 24, 2008 7:47 AM | Link to this

I’m a scientist and practicing christian, yet my head doesn’t explode. My specialty is high energy particle physics and not biology, so I’m not getting involved with the ‘origin-of-life’ issues. There is room for God and science and the two are not mutually exclusive. By allowing us tiny glimpses of the creation of this universe, I become more, not less, awed by the majesty of it all. This is the year that physicists are expecting to observe the Higgs Boson which theoretically operates like a catalytic operator upon the energy=mass equation as the transport mechanism by which matter becomes manifested from energy. I personally have no doubt that by observing the properties of this entity, greater and more profound questions will emerge to confound us.

By high school physics teacher

April 24, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this

ScottN wrote: “Many comments have been made about how evolution has never been “proven.” Others have responded, but it bears repeating, nothing in science is ever “proven.” All knowledge is provisional and is subject to modification in the face of new evidence.”

Thank you! Nice to see somebody understands his ABC’s.

AH wrote: “Just because some lazy scientist use terms interchangeable doesn’t make it so.

Us engineer types like to be precise when we use terms. There is now room for gray area in science”

You’re funny. You know what? All your engineering manuals are “just a theory” too. Engineering is built on top of a scientific foundation. Engineering is accomplished by agreeing to operate within well-known scientific limits. Outside of those well-known limits, engineers have no information about their systems. It works, because the system is engineered to never operate outside of those limits. Pretty nice way of doing things—keep up the good work. You might want to leave discussion of science alone though.

By Copyleft

April 24, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this

There you go again, TheLies…. LYING. Again.

“science teachers in schools and colleges have taught that Christianity and ID are garbage and that evolution is fact.”

Bull. Science teachers may have pointed out that a fundamentalist. literal belief in the Bible is garbage (because, after all, it IS), and that ID is garbage (because it—get ready—ISN’T SCIENCE if you can’t test or disprove it)… but I guarantee you that none of your science teachers, including the Christians, said that Christianity ITSELF was garbage.

As for evolution being a fact: Get over it. It IS a fact, an observed phenomenon just like the curvature of the earth, the falling of objects due to gravity, and so on. Darwin’s theory of natural selection explains HOW this observed phenomenon occurs and the underlying mechanisms for it.

And do some checking, people. In science, a “THEORY” is not conjecture, a “guess,” an untested claim, or anything else the ID nuts want it to be. It’s a tested, vetted, and repeatedly examined Best Available Explanation for how something happens.

ID has NOTHING comparable to offer. Their “theory” consists of saying, “Oh, yeah? Well, evolution sucks. And Darwin was a racist. And eugenics. And school prayer. And stuff. So there!”

News flash, kiddies… that ain’t science. And if we’re impinging on “freedom and liberty” by withholding the label of Valid Science from petulant, ignorant pouting and whining… well, so be it.

ID just doesn’t cut it, and its proponents know it. So they’re trying to throw out the notion of having any standards for science at all, in order to shoehorn their personal (untried and untested) beliefs in there. Not gonna work. You guys just can’t compete in the science field, so you’re trying to change the rules. Too bad, so sad.

By Nemes40520

April 24, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this

Logical Dude: Alien seeding? In the movie Dr.Dawkins states that we could have been “seeded” from aliens from another planet that “evolved”. How would he Know? Has he been there?

By GalapagosPete

April 24, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this

The Truth posted, “When teachers tell a religious student that God is not real and that he/she should denounce their faith that is when it gets dangerous.”

Teachers in public schools aren’t supposed to tell their students anything good, bad or indifferent about gods. It isn’t appropriate. If a teacher puts down religion they should be reported just as quickly as if they endorsed it. Proper science education ignores gods because using them as an “explanation” really explains nothing.

If parents have a problem with science teaching natural explanations for natural phenomena, then they should send their children to religious schools. Public schools, being paid for by tax money collected by people of different and no faiths, should not present particular religious beliefs in science class.

By Copyleft

April 24, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this

But it’s UNFAIR for schools to only teach legitimate science! What about freedom of inquiry, and equal opportunity for idiotic opinions with no factual basis? Huh? What about THEM?

It’s funny how the arch-conservative religious nuts only talk about “fairness and equality” when they’re trying to push THEIR stuff into areas it doesn’t qualify for. The rest of the time, “fairness” isn’t even in their vocabulary.

(snicker)

By GalapagosPete

April 24, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this

Nemes40520 posted, “Alien seeding? In the movie Dr.Dawkins states that we could have been “seeded” from aliens from another planet that “evolved”. How would he Know? Has he been there?”

Maybe. He is married to a Time Lady, after all.

In any case, he was not offering his personal opinion. He was asked if there was any possibility of any type of “ID” that could have occurred, and he brought up panspermia, the hypothesis that some sort of spore could have drifted here through space or been brought in on a meteor, or whatever.

He also pointed out that even if that did happen, it still requires for THAT life to have evolved elsewhere. It is not a hypothesis he buys into, by the way.

By LAD

April 24, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

Why does this kind of thing always end up with people screaming about “liberals putting down Christains?” First off, lots of Christians ARE LIBERALS!! Second, ID isn’t supposed to be about Christainity or even God…if you followed the Dover trials you would know that. People are so lame.

By LAD

April 24, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

Why does this kind of thing always end up with people screaming about “liberals putting down Christains?” First off, lots of Christians ARE LIBERALS!! Second, ID isn’t supposed to be about Christainity or even God…if you followed the Dover trials you would know that. And how can anyone with a brain in his day and age offer up “evolution is ONLY A THEORY” as a meaningful arguement? Even my 15 year old kid knows better than that. Geeze, American people are so ignorant it’s embarassing.

By Scott

April 24, 2008 5:44 PM | Link to this

Intelligent design is the assertion that an intelligent designer designed and created the universe, including living things in their present forms. That assertion cannot be tested and it cannot become a scientific theory. People who represent intelligent design as a scientific theory are simply lying.