Yesterday a group of individuals with whom I study the bible with decided to go to a special showing of a movie called "Expelled". Being an ex-athiest/agnostic I was prepared for a Michael Moore style "documentary". What I actually saw was far worse. I do not know whether Ben Steins obtuseness is deliberate or unintentional, but it is profound. There were blatant misunderstandings of basic evolutionary principles as well as a blurring of definitions of the word evolution until the only definition left standing is one that includes the hypothesis of naturalism. The failure to define any of the real arguments of ID doesnt really seem to be a problem for Mr. Stein. Neither apparently is the blatant and disgusting attempt to place the blame for the atrocities commited by Hitler squarely on evolutionary theory and its proponents. In short this movie does nothing but build walls between the scientific community and the religious. It is devisive in nature. I believe that this movie is truly inspired. Unfortuneatly the muse is not God, but him to whom devisiveness is second nature.
The moment where the movie was over and the theatre packed full of christians began clapping and cheering was probably one of the most profoundly scary moments of my life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
There were some significant flaws in the film but I don't think that they were so bad as to eclipse the strengths of the film and the film does have some significant accomplishments. The most important aspect is that it highlights biases in the scientific community against scientists who question some "sacred" doctrines of naturalism, and these are credentialed skilled scientists. You don't get to head a department (or publication?) at the Smithsonian Institute as someone who is incompetent. This was the central point of the film and it was a success for bringing this sort of information to relatively filled theatres (there was a decent crowd at the showing I attended).
The movie did touch on one of the central components of ID, that the developement of the cell was simply too statistically improbable to have occured by natural means. It went into a some detail on this point. The filmmakers could have done more, but I don't think that this lack is serious flaw. In light of the fact that whole films and books are dedicated to the the specifics, I don't expect this film to be everything to the debate or to be a wholly adequate education on the nature of ID. zi think it's one of many decent starting places. The point with the ID presentation is to give a glimpse into what it is that these scientists are claiming about ID and naturalism.
Another explanation was in terms of metaphor. The film highlighted that the cell was far more complex than Darwin realized and Stein asked several ID theorists what the cell would be today if Darwin's conception was that it was a pinto, or a mud hut. This was valuable because word pictures communicate effectively. Added to this was the footage of the cell going through complex processes.
There may have been further argument for ID embedded in the interviews, but I don't recall them. But again overall, the film was not primarily an argument for ID. It was an argument that the ID side was not getting a fair consideration in the debate.
I didn't get the idea that common descent, or all ideas of evolution were condemned. I went to the film knowing that this would present the side of ID theorists, mostly the ones who held to common descent while believing that purely natural processes could not explain all of evolution. I didn't walk away with the impression that this view was ruled out. I don't recall every time this view was articulated except for the interview with William Dembski who said that the implications of ID to Darwin's discoveries could be likened to the implications of Einstein's discoveries to Newtonian physics, which demonstrated that there was more to the picture than originally concieved. I don't know that Stein ever intended to contradict this picture and I don't think he clearly did.
I was a little surprised to see Jonathan Wells raise exceptions to speciation. Speciation as defined by a biological division rising to prevent interbreeding between two populations of what used to be one species is something that even young earth creationists will concede. He may have raised it along the lines of what another ID person mentioned, that we don't even know what a species is (presumably, not everyone is satisfied with the definition given above?) Jonathan Wells to my knowledge believes in common descent anyway as after a lecture at my former colledge, some students asked him about it and he confirmed that he held to common descent (though I don't know that he thinks it is complete having said at an Intellegent Design conference that I attended that he found the idea that humans themselves evolved to be existentially repugnant).
Was it fair to bring up the realtionship between Darwinism and the nazis? I think a cautionary reminder of the history of the use of the theory is not a bad thing and if the implications of naturalism is that we are no different from the animals whom we may selectively breed and put down for defects, why not do the same with humans? It was very telling that some of the nazi's views on eugenics were not restricted to germany along with their odd views on the Jews, but it was also held by tens of thousands of American scientists.
Richard Dawkins in his review of the movie stated that it was a fallacy to go from what is to what ought to be and insisted that he was not a Darwinist when it came to humans. But the point is, if there is nothing more than matter and natural forces, it's not clear that an ought can be derived from anywhere. Of course I argue that even atheists can be moral and develope morals, but I still do not believe that they can have a very solid foundation for those morals ideologically speaking.
The connection was also cautionary along the lines of suppression of academic freedom.
I think a third point could've been made in the movie but it wasn't. I sometimes evaluate a source not just for the arguments but for the information it provides even if it didn't make all the best connections that could've been made. The naturalists in the movie did express a degree of hysteria about the idea of giving ID a fair hearing in academic circles and in education, that science education would suffer, that we'd come to theocracy, superstition would be rampant and so on. I think in light of these accusations of where belief in a creator might be taken, it is fair to bring up the attrocities that can be done in the name of evolution as well.
I think a good criticism that Dawkins brought up in his review was about the interview with Michael Ruse who suggested that life might've developed on the backs of crystals. Honestly, it's not the kind of thing that I as a layman without thorough advanced training in chemistry or cellular biology could really evaluate. I thought the clip at the moment of the fortune teller with his crystal was amusing, but I understand complex and nuanced ideas can be made to look foolish when in fact, the idea may have a lot to commend it, and that it is easily mocked doesn't mean that it was given an honest assesment. I know from personal experience that nuanced and sophisticated ideas can be mangled like the china in a shop with a bull. Here again though, I made a connection that wasn't explictely made in the movie. So many of the naturalists wouldn't give the considerations of ID equally deserving thought and would treat it with equal impatience and even more derision and in Dawkins case, outright vitriol. They aren't much for charatible interpretation. But of course we'd all be better off if everyone was given toward charitable interpreations even towards opposing viewpoints.
There was also an issue raised about the ethics of creating the movie. Many if not most if not all of the naturalists were tricked into participating. They were not told that the movie was going to be told from an ID point of view and were probably led to believe that it was neutral or just about the debate with an attempt at no point of view. Of course Dawkins in his caustic style mentioned that had he known they were of the ID crowd, he would not have been nice to them. It's not a good thing when you have to be tricked into engaging the opposition and some of these guys just want to hurl mud balls from a distance. That said, as a Christian, I do think the ethics here were sketchy.
I'm not sure of the value of the interview with Richard Dawkins at the end. For this and other reasons, I'd like to see the movie again. It's a natural climax of the movie to have Richard Dawkins stumbling over his words and seemingly frustrated, but I'm not sure that Ben Stein actually accomplished anything with it. He's trained as a Lawyer, and perhaps this would look good to a jury, but I'd need to analyze where Stein was taking the movie and what really came out of this interview that was of significant subsance.
That said, I felt it was, overall a good movie. It was entertaining and will reach plenty of people for that reason, it was informative and had good food for thought. It does have some flaws and for closed minds, they will latch on to those and use them as an excuse not to fully think through the issue. I think alot of these naturalists are committed to their dogma and they aren't purely rational souls waiting for a good argument to make them see otherwise. Some are so wrapped up in their own perspective and world view that their only chance to see things any other way is through the influence of the Holy Spirit who can work through even this movie, even if it's not perfect.
just saw Expelled; the fact that Ben Stein isn't trying to win any popularity contests helps to validate his message... i gather that his goal is to promote free thought, especially more thinking about the worldviews that drive American academia
The scientific method.
1. observe facts.
2. make a hypothesis to explain the facts.
3. test the hypothesis.
4. refine the hypothesis.
5. repeat steps 2-4
6. eventually the hypothesis, after much testing and refining becomes a Law or Theory which is then in turn treated as fact. i.e. the law of gravity started out as a hypothesis. It is now treated as a fact upon which new theories can be built.
The problem with ID is that it is not science. It has no testable hypothesis. Science deals with observables in nature. By definition, any thoery which includes the supernatural falls outside this realm. If a theory does this it now falls into that area of study called philosophy.
ID is a philosophical theory.
Naturalism is a philosophical theory. (by nature of its exclusion of the supernatural.) Neither theory has any place in science, thus it is the right of the scientific community to excommunicate people who try teach ID as if it is science. I just wish they would do the same to naturalists.
I've never heard of that take before, that both naturalism and ID fail to be scientific. But all scientists are going to have opinions of these things and I would think that they would have to integrate their views of science into the big picture as they understand it. I would have to disagree that science is entirely a process of observation. There are after all untestable assumptions within science, some of which are necessary to science. These are philosophical concepts no less. ONe example is the notion that the universe is a logical place. If it wasn't, then the scientific process wouldn't even work for falsification. So if a hypothesis is falsified not just once but through many experiments, it wouldn't be necessary to conclude that the hypothesis was ruled out because the law of non-contradiction wouldn't apply. Another unobservable notion is that of causation. Philosopher David Hume made the case that there is no observable difference between a series of events connected by causation and a series of events that just happened to occur sequentially. For example, when you use a pool stick to hit a cueball which hits an 8 ball which moves further, you take it for granted that the force and collision of the pool stick caused the cue ball to move and collide with the 8 ball which caused the 8 ball to move, but the only thing observed here is a series of events. It could also be the case that the cue ball collides with the 8 ball and nothing happens, or the cue ball keeps on moving through the 8 ball, but for no reason, there is just this consistency of events that one might think implied causation. Causation is an interpretation we bring to the world that we observe... though science and people in general assume it is the correct one. One might think that it is enough to point out the amazing consistency of events as proof of causation, but it isn't, not deductively speaking, since it is deductively fallacious to generalize from the particular an with science, we are always taking a finite instances of events and applying the term always to their nature.
The very act of forming a hypothesis itself may include intuitive and creative processes that are beyond the scope of explanation within the scientific method and perhaps to a lesser extent, the process of figuring out how to test that hypothesis is similar.
ID, like naturalism in general and evolution less generally does include concepts that are falsifiable and and this provides grounds for future research. The concept irreducable complexity is itself not subject to falsification but specific examples of irreducable complexity may provide such examples depending on our technical ability to manipulate life.
Finally, science doesn't just deal with observations but seeks to interpret these observations in terms of patterns and ways of understanding the world to find a best fit explanation, and that also entails going beyond the observations and may involve philosophical dispositions.
Now for ID, there there are opportunities for research and application of the scientific method through the concept of irreducable complexity.
If a system within an organism (especially one necessary for survival) is believed to be irreducibly complex or to have a great degree of irreducable complexity, what you do to test that is eliminate parts of that system. If the system won't work with any parts missing, then you have an irreducably complex system that cannot be feasibly explained by natural non-teleological processes (meaning purpesless, aimless processes). If it won't work with more than a few parts missing, and there are a lot of parts, then you have high degree of irreducible complexity. Now this isn't a slam dunk proof of irreducable complexity as there may be surrogate parts that can stand in at various levels, but it is understood in the scientific method that it will take a variety of tests to demonstrate this. Through the confirmation of irreducable complexity, the interpretation of ID is strengthened.
Of course not being a geneticist or microbiologist, that process may be far easier said than done. Even though we are advancing in genetic engineering, I don't know how precise our genetic surgery is to perform such experiments.
But that's not the only way to do science. I believe that for many examples, the scientific work has been done to a large degree in that scientists know alot about how essential components are to various systems and that's why you have so much ink spilled by guys like Behe without research that is directed specifically at irreducible complexity and intellegent design. They make their case from the research that works out the nature of components of these systems.
This research of course could amount to a dual purpose, What my experiment describes are ways to reduce a system if there are any such reductions that can be made. This doesn't just have to be done for the purpose of ID. If evolutionists and even naturalists want to know how life could have evolved, they are asking precisely this question, how can biological systems be reduced to more basic forms in statistically probable steps. In other words, you'd be reverse enginearing evolution to figure out how it might've happened. It is only when those ways have been reduced to zero that we have an example of irreducable complexity and thus evidence of an intelligent designer. Does this prove a designer? it no more proves a designer than positive test results prove as necessary the truth of hypothesis, but it adds strength to the view.
Your causation argument is a prime example of why science and philosophy don't mix well. A philosopher such as Hume can say that what we observe as causation could actually be a coincidence. He can say this because philosophy is free to take into account the unobservable.
Science does not take cause and effect for granted. It is encapsulated in Newtons first Law.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This quantization of the observed phenomena of cause and effect has allowed for a lot of advances in science and technology.
Irreducable complexity is a thouroughly annoying theory. It doesnt seem to accept adaptation of one thing for a different purpose. i.e. the fins of a fish being used for locomotion instead of swimming. It also doesnt take into account accidental improvements to the genetic code of a creature. commonly refered to as mutation. With the genetic alphabet consisting of only 4 letters it seems to me that you could have a massive change from one simple letter change in the code.
As for ID's use of statistics that is all bunk. First of all it is a pretty massive assumption that we know enough about chemistry, biology, geology, physics, etc. to assign the correct probabilities to an event. Second the statement that a one in a trillion chance is the same as zero chance is absurd. If there is one in a trillion chance of flipping a coin and having it land on its edge, if you flip said coin a trillion times, statistically it will land on its edge once.
It is encapsulated in Newtons first Law.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Actually it isn't at all... not as you have stated just there. All we have is a correlation which science properly assumes (and I say properly because I am subjectively biased in favor of the assumptions of science) will always occur given that all other events are sufficiently similar to those observed. So what if an precedes an equal and opposite reaction. Causation cannot be reduced to consistent correlation either since there are such things as spurious correlations. As to what causation is, it is to my knowledge that it is not uncontroversially defined. But we do have a basic intuitive grasp of it.
Thus, still, science and philosophy cannot fail to mix. You don't always have to deal with philosophy when doing science because you can take the philosophical underpinnings for granted, but once you step back and say "okay, what is it really that this is saying about reality and the nature of knowledge" philosophy comes rushing back in full force. On these two, science and philosophy strongly overlap. Science brings us knowledge about reality (provided you accept the philosophical concepts behind that claim) and philosophy has reality (metaphycis) and knowledge (epistemology) as explicit areas of study.
Irreducable complexity is a thouroughly annoying theory. It doesnt seem to accept adaptation of one thing for a different purpose. i.e. the fins of a fish being used for locomotion instead of swimming.
This isn't a dogma of irreducable complexity. Behe admits that indirect routes of developement are possible but he notes that the more complex a system is, the less likely an indirect route is for developement of a system.
In his response to the Dover court case rulings, he quotes another expert in the field in support of this, specifically one who doesn't support intellegent design but admits that the indirect route may not be satisfactory for all alleged cases of irreducible complexity.
we might think that some of the parts of an irreducibly complex system evolved step by step for some other purpose and were then recruited wholesale to a new function. But this is also unlikely. You may as well hope that half your car’s transmission will suddenly help out in the airbag department. Such things might happen very, very rarely, but they surely do not offer a general solution to irreducible complexity. (Orr, H. A. Darwin v. intelligent design (again). Boston Review [Dec/Jan], 28-31. 1996)
The source comes from here.
It also doesnt take into account accidental improvements to the genetic code of a creature. commonly refered to as mutation.
whether or not a particular ID theorist subscribes to the notion that there are beneficial mutations, it's not an issue that irreducible complexity depends upon. The issue there is that there are some complex systems dependent upon long strands of DNA simply could not have arisen by one beneficial piece at a time because the benefit of each part of the code is only within the context of the whole system.
As for ID's use of statistics that is all bunk.
Well, I'm not a mathematician or close so I can't really assess that claim.
First of all it is a pretty massive assumption that we know enough about chemistry, biology, geology, physics, etc. to assign the correct probabilities to an event.
But all of science is just as pressumptious because we are always working with only the best knowledge that is available to us.
Further along those lines, this claim is a two edged sword. It is naturalism that suggests that it is statistically probable that completely natural and non-teleological forces explain all of life.
Second the statement that a one in a trillion chance is the same as zero chance is absurd. If there is one in a trillion chance of flipping a coin and having it land on its edge, if you flip said coin a trillion times, statistically it will land on its edge once.
right. of course if the chance that the coin will land on it's edge is one in a trillion squared, it's really not feasible to believe that will ever happen if it is flipped a trillian times. I don't know that anything in science is about possibility and impossibility so much as it is about probablity and improbability especially in the age of quantum indeterminacy.
Hello, Patrick --come visit my blog
www.thebarbwire.blogspot.com
I agree with patrick and rob on this one -- I don't think it's the spirit of Beelzebub who is the muse for Ben's movie. But I haven't seen it yet. I'm just pleased that someone sees the sacred cow that Darwin's theory has become.
OK, now I've seen the movie, Fellahs.
The best thing about it was to hear all those reputable brainiacs say they were black-balled for having any respect at all for ID scientists --for questioning Darwin --for DARING to suggest that Darwinism was not established "fact" about which no inquiry or doubt should be raised.
Also good to hear Dawkins admit he didn't know how life began --after all!
Look at all of the Rohr Family nonsense comments here! Still living in the 6th millennium BC.
Volumes of falderal posing as intellectual inquiry.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/02/evangelicals.ap/index.html
I'm sorry mud rake the website you posted doesnt seem to work anymore. I therefore have no idea whether anything you have posted has any relevence to the issue at hand. What was the article about?
right. of course if the chance that the coin will land on it's edge is one in a trillion squared, it's really not feasible to believe that will ever happen if it is flipped a trillian times. I don't know that anything in science is about possibility and impossibility so much as it is about probablity and improbability especially in the age of quantum indeterminacy.
I think I need some duct tape for my head so it doesnt explode. I was trying to explain to you that probablility does not rest on the statistic alone but also on the frequency of the event in question.
You cannot determine the probability of something until you know both the statistical probability and the frequency of the event. mathematically:
F=frequency of Event
S=statistical probablility of the event happening.
P=probability of an event taking place in a given period of time.
P=F*S
For an example of this lets us take a 6-sided dice. The statistical probability of rolling any specific number(assuming a perfectly weighted die) is 1 in 6.
For the correct probablility of rolling a specified number you must take into account the number of times you are going to roll the dice. Thus if you roll the dice one time you have a 16.67% chance to roll the number. If you roll the dice 18 times you will probably roll the number 3 times.
This is why I say that ID's use of statistics is fallacious. We lack sufficient scientific knowledge of how things work to actually assign both correct statistical probability and frequency to a cosmological or evolutionary event.
the very fact that we "lack sufficient scientific knowledge for how things work" ought to humble the evolutionists as much as they try to humble the creationists.
there IS much mystery still --despite all we do know --so why are the darwinists so adamant about their pet theory?
Barb said...
the very fact that we "lack sufficient scientific knowledge for how things work" ought to humble the evolutionists as much as they try to humble the creationists.
there IS much mystery still --despite all we do know --so why are the darwinists so adamant about their pet theory?
Humility is a spiritual fruit. The reason they are adamant is because the subject has been polarized.(almost certainly by infernal influence.) Even in your post you can see the polarity. You use the term evolutionist as if evolution and naturalism are one and the same. because of this people who come to hold the scientific theory of evolution. use the word creation and unscientific to be synonymous.
We would have a lot more progress toward mending fences if we would simply accept that evolution, as a set of facts, can be used in the fields of philosophy/theology to support both naturalism and creationism.
I don't feel the animosity or the tension that the evolutionist does --a really angry atheistic Darwinist wants the Christians to give up both their interpretations of the scientific evidence and their faith --and it makes them mad that we don't embrace both their atheism and their science --I believe what I believe without anger at the other side --and I've read enough of the creationists' stuff --in fact started to lean in their direction when we heard this med student who had a masters in bio-chem talk to the Christian Med. Society in Toledo. That's all it took for me -to hear and read real scientists saying Darwin's theory isn't proven and there is much evidence to interpret against it. He was full of data/factual info.
Jon already, by that time in residency, was a creationist --i.e. a scientist who saw the hand of God in life rather than an unguided, naturalistic process such as Darwin described but did not prove --which is still not proven. His bio-profs in college said Darwin had unresolved problems in his theory. I was willing to believe that Darwin explained how God created. But the Creationists are scientists who know the evidence is subject to interp.
People look at the natural selection process and say it proves all of Darwin--but it does not. The Cell's intricacies prove a designer.
Now, I understand that you believe in the Designer also --but you also think that the scientists have proven Darwin's theory. The polarity on the issue is more their sacred cow than mine. They get mad because I don't believe their theory. I'm not mad at them. To an atheist, Darwin's theory IS the sacred cow. He is vehement. And when Christians get vehement over Darwinian evidence that is disputable, I quite frankly, don't get it. Well, yes I do --you think we creationist Christians are being anti-intellectual and making Christianity look bad. But if we're right and the evidence for Darwin is lacking --then why preach it???
I don't buy it --that evolution is useful if it says we descended from apes by naturalistic occurences --because no apes are breeding anything human today. The Dna we share is put there by the designer --if you are a mammal, you have DNA for mammals, whether you are an animal or a human. Do we share any DNA with a plant? I've no idea --but I'd say very little, except to share LIFE at all is probability for design.
Evolution negates what we call the supernatural or the miraculous (which are also scientific by God's knowledge --He knows how it's done and how to do it --Spirit may be quantifiable by God --explainable -- but even if we effect a miracle through prayer, we don't know the HOW of it.
Jesus, didn't need evolution. He SPEAKS, and it happens. That is, He commands, and effects change, from a power and knowledge source that is beyond us.
If evolution were proven --as you suppose, C.A., then you have no choice in trying to be Christian than to reconcile your faith with what you view to be the facts. And I am not trying to stop you or de-Christianize you--just because we don't agree. I am trying to explain my perspective, however.
I've always said that my faith is not dependent on Genesis being literal --in case somebody transitions to a new super human through natural selection--or in case some ape's descendent makes an observeable transition to being more human through a mutation that gets passed on as an improvement in the species.
I just don't believe in Darwin's "facts" and I understand from scientists (including hubby) that they haven't got evidence as proof --only evidence to interpret as proof --which can be interpreted better by creationists. In fact, there were FRAUDS used to prove Darwin in time's past --doctored finds.
Consider the lack of ongoing cross-species evolution -- the fact that we all reproduce after our own kind --as the Bible said. Yes, there are improvements in a species through breeding and nutrition. But what ongoing evolution do we see that really crosses classifications of creatures? Zero, Zip, Nada. Fossils don't prove the transition --only the design similarities between extinct and living creatures.
Even in the 1990's the evolution educators were so mixed up they were still teaching that giraffes evolved long necks to eat from the top of the trees --to survive. Yet, truth be told, short creatures co-existed with them --so what was the necessity of the long neck for survival? This of course was LaMarck's theory, not Darwin's --but that shows how little is understood even by an evolution advocate in the text books. Patterson and Gould were said to be embarrassed by this sort of nonsense that demonstrated that even evolution educators didn't understand Darwin.
another lame example--"man EVOLVED to walk upright so he could better carry his food through the tall savannah grass and see his enemies." Have you seen anyone acquire a genetic trait because his parent needed it to survive??? No. All the traits are already in the genes --except those acquired through mutation and mating --and the ones through mutation are usually a change for the worse.
The fact is that a genetic trait that enables survival is passed on because the offspring who HAVE that trait do survive. If they get the trait for a weakness (a genetic defect causing a disability), they didn't survive.
Genetic defects ARE passed on, nonetheless, like red-green color blindness --and the carriers do survive to pass it on--as I did to Johnny.
Yes, the other animals pre-date the human in both evolution and creation--but evolution says the creatures had to struggle and kill each other off over millions of years in order to propagate their species --the Bible says there was no sin or death before Adam and Eve on the earth. Why would God as we understand Him need such a violent and ruthless method of developing all the species of life? And how do you get the evolvement of male and female accidentally --so they can mate and not count on this random cell division/mutation/process. Sex itself is evidence of a Designer.
So just how do you reconcile the Darwinian method with what we know about God and HIs disdain for the violence on the earth? Darwin says violence is natural --the only way we could have evolved.
Granted, if God wanted to do it Darwin's way, He could have --but where is the necessity of it when JEsus Christ could speak life into a creature --and could speak a change from blindness to sight.
In the beginning was the WORD....and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us....
and through Him was everything made that was made.
...when cornered, quote the Bible!
Barb said...
That's all it took for me -to hear and read real scientists saying Darwin's theory isn't proven and there is much evidence to interpret against it. He was full of data/factual info.
Its important for you to realize that in science no theory is ever proven positively. Only widely accepted till some genious comes around and modifies or proves it wrong.
Jon already, by that time in residency, was a creationist --i.e. a scientist who saw the hand of God in life rather than an unguided, naturalistic process such as Darwin described but did not prove(according to you he described naturalism, I have been arguing that he did not) --which is still not proven. His bio-profs in college said Darwin had unresolved problems in his theory.(which is how good science is conducted) I was willing to believe that Darwin explained how God created. But the Creationists are scientists who know the evidence is subject to interp.
some evidence is up for interpretation. The age of the earth is not one of those things. It is something you can see everytime you look up on a star filled night and see galaxies which are millions of light years away.
...And when Christians get vehement over Darwinian evidence that is disputable, I quite frankly, don't get it. Well, yes I do --you think we creationist Christians are being anti-intellectual and making Christianity look bad. But if we're right and the evidence for Darwin is lacking --then why preach it???
Please, please, please, please stop using the word darwinism in this debate if you would. I cannot tell whether you are refering to evolutionary theory or to naturalism. The evidence for naturalism is lacking. The evidence for evolution is not. I am vehement in defending evolution for several reasons.
1. It is a good theory to describe observed geological and biological phenomena.
3. Literalistic interpretation of the bible are warping the true message of scripture and leading christians down a path that leads to divisiveness and isolationism.
4. it is indeed anti-intellectual to reject science and if there was ever a time when we need intellect in the body of Christ it is now.
5. Anti-evolutionary movements within the church make preaching the good news to a large group of people very difficult.
6. We are causing crises' of faith in our children when they are confronted with science in conflict with the creationist establishment prevelant in the church today. A wholly unneccesary conflict.
Evolution negates what we call the supernatural or the miraculous (no that is what naturalism does.) (which are also scientific by God's knowledge --He knows how it's done and how to do it --Spirit may be quantifiable by God --explainable -- but even if we effect a miracle through prayer, we don't know the HOW of it.
Which is precisely why I think evolution is good. Genesis gives they why of creation, evolution provides a few of the hows.
Jesus, didn't need evolution. He SPEAKS, and it happens. That is, He commands, and effects change, from a power and knowledge source that is beyond us.
God needs nothing. He can create in whatever way he chooses. Why should God create in an instant when He could just as easily take his time, so to speak, and enjoy the process. If you could choose it would you rather create a child of your own as a full grown adult, or would you prefer to have the 'parenting' experience? In the end who has known the mind of God? or who has been his counselor? He does things his own way and it is not our place to try and force him into a box.
If evolution were proven --as you suppose, C.A., then you have no choice in trying to be Christian than to reconcile your faith with what you view to be the facts. And I am not trying to stop you or de-Christianize you--just because we don't agree. I am trying to explain my perspective, however.
As I am trying to express mine. However it must be noted that at least one of us is wrong. More likely both. Truth is not relative and that is why we are debating now. In order to come to a more perfect understanding of God and his ways.
I just don't believe in Darwin's "facts" and I understand from scientists (including hubby) that they haven't got evidence as proof --only evidence to interpret as proof --which can be interpreted better by creationists. In fact, there were FRAUDS used to prove Darwin in time's past --doctored finds.
the existence of frauds do not make a thing wrong or right. Christianity has its own share of frauds when it comes down to it.
Consider the lack of ongoing cross-species evolution -- the fact that we all reproduce after our own kind --as the Bible said. Yes, there are improvements in a species through breeding and nutrition. But what ongoing evolution do we see that really crosses classifications of creatures? Zero, Zip, Nada. Fossils don't prove the transition --only the design similarities between extinct and living creatures.
Do you honestly expect to see transition of species in such a short blink of time as a century or two? The evolutionary process has been going on for over a billion years. On top of that the current fad of conservationism means that species whose normall way of life is threatened are protected, thus we cut out the process which drives specieation.
another lame example--"man EVOLVED to walk upright so he could better carry his food through the tall savannah grass and see his enemies." Have you seen anyone acquire a genetic trait because his parent needed it to survive??? No. All the traits are already in the genes --except those acquired through mutation and mating --and the ones through mutation are usually a change for the worse.
The above statement reflects a gross misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
The fact is that a genetic trait that enables survival is passed on because the offspring who HAVE that trait do survive. If they get the trait for a weakness (a genetic defect causing a disability), they didn't survive.
Genetic defects ARE passed on, nonetheless, like red-green color blindness --and the carriers do survive to pass it on--as I did to Johnny.
A trait has to have significance for survival before it can really have an effect on natural selection.
Yes, the other animals pre-date the human in both evolution and creation--but evolution says the creatures had to struggle and kill each other off over millions of years in order to propagate their species --the Bible says there was no sin or death before Adam and Eve on the earth. Why would God as we understand Him need such a violent and ruthless method of developing all the species of life?
...So just how do you reconcile the Darwinian method with what we know about God and HIs disdain for the violence on the earth? Darwin says violence is natural --the only way we could have evolved.
I think if you'll take an honest reading of the old testement you will see that God doesnt seem to mind killing as much as you would suppose. He pretty explicitly exhorts Isreal to commit genocide on every man woman and child living in the promised land.
Granted, if God wanted to do it Darwin's way, He could have --but where is the necessity of it when JEsus Christ could speak life into a creature --and could speak a change from blindness to sight.
wheres the neccessity to create in the blink of an eye?
In the beginning was the WORD....and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us....
and through Him was everything made that was made.
Amen.
I think I need some duct tape for my head so it doesnt explode. I was trying to explain to you that probablility does not rest on the statistic alone but also on the frequency of the event in question.
The statistical argument takes into account frequencies. I was trying to explain that your made up statistical example didn't necessarily represent the actual mathematical arguments. Maybe my made up statistical argument represents the real arguments better. The devil is in the details and that is something that neither of us went into. I'm not going into that level though since you didn't and since I haven't nor have the time. we could go into it, but that is an issue that is at the level where it is your experts against the word of my experts... again, I'm not a mathematician and the technical arguments are ultimately probably going to go over my head.
even in your discussion with the specific formula, you aren't going into the details of what has actually and specifically been said regarding the statistics (and I use that term loosely to include frequency)
This point is misunderstood though: the discussion of irreducable complexity is a non-mathematical way of pointing out a statistical problem, in as much as the evolutionists claim that gradual mutation can lead to evolution is a non-mathematical way of making a statistical claim.
We lack sufficient scientific knowledge of how things work to actually assign both correct statistical probability and frequency to a cosmological or evolutionary event.
again, there's nothing to stop the critic of evolution from using that same line of thinking against evolution in any form. If we lack the scientific knowledge to assign the correct statistical probability to a cosmological or evolutionary event, then we simply cannot say that it is plausible that it happened at all.
Check this one out to counter Rob's dad and Barb's husband:
Bring evolution debate into 21st century
Dad barely follows the blogs mudrake and doesn't have much time for doing so.
None of the contents of the article was news to me.
I've already commented on the false pretenses that some of the interviews were conducted and have expressed my concern about it.
I'm aware that cited examples of academic persecution have been challenged and I don't consider the challenges to be the last word on those incidences. But regardless of whether they are accurate or not, the film is in no way shape or form wrong in it's central claim that the majority of the scientific community has a blind spot and a prejudice regarding the topic of ID.
There was nothing intellectually dishonest in Stein's use of Darwin's comment just because Darwin expressed a revulsion at the thought immediately after word. For many, even if Darwin still saw value in nobility, that doesn't mean that his principal idea wasn't for the eugenicists, letting the cat out of the bag.
The author made a rather vacuous claim at the end about sailing into uncharted territory with eyes shut... given that we don't uncritically accept his views of naturalism (yes naturalism, not just evolution... if we can presume he knows that he was writing against a film that is primarily a criticism against naturalism and not necessarly the notion of common descent which many ID theorists hold to). Odd world we live in where questioning and probing the the veracity of an idea is keeping your eyes shut. Of course he intends to indicate that without evolution, biology won't advance as far, but that is simply unbelievable. whether there is common descent or not, or even the truth of naturalism or not, investigations into the function and structure of the cell, and systems at all levels within the organism are going to produce as much fruit.
Administrators can SAY that ID had nothing to do with withholding tenure or firing or not hiring someone --but their defense is not proof of their fair-minded objectivity.
Several students called in to a christian radio talk program and said they were hammered at their colleges, and they believed they were down-graded and otherwise discriminated against for their views either on science or religion.
I hear it on blogs --there are people who just conclude if you don't believe in evolution, you are really stupid and couldn't possibly be a scientist --yet, some of our greatest minds had faith in God as Creator --and didn't believe in naturalistic origins theories --and today, some ID folks DO believe in common descent, i guess --or maybe they say so to stay employed.
Look at Saturday's Blade letters --Stierman at U.T. said the earth was "unimaginably old" and "billions of years old." How scientific does that sound to me? NOT! How many billions? Can't he do better with all this evidence and radiometric dating at his disposal??
And then another prof at the u.T. pointed out on the same day that corn fuel causes more carbon emissions --and that we rushed into a solution for global warming that may not be helpful or necessary.
Then another U.T. person, an administrator, is being threatened in her career for saying she believes God doesn't want us to be homosexuals. She's entitled to her opinion!!! After all, others are saying the opposite. Who can authoritatively say she's wrong? Disease stats are evidence in her favor.
Other articles recently show that scientists change their minds all the time about humans and their health -- a subject we have right in front of us, and can do testing in the here and now, and we are constantly having to change course --coffee good? coffee bad. Vitamin E good? E bad. And so on.
So if hypothesizing, testing, and gathering evidence, leads to a new conclusion with every uni study, why should we think anyone knows very much about billions of years ago and extinct creatures??? and God's method of design or lack thereof. The evidence is on the side of design and tremendous intelligence behind our existance and our bodily systems.
PS --I realize CA that you believe in the Designer --and that we are designed --that God controlled the process? right? And I know you are among those that believes in great age and common descent and it bothers you that Christians take this dim view of Darwin's contribution to science --we recognize that he classified most of the creatures for study according to their features in common--and that he described natural selection, survival of the fittest --in ways that had merit within species. Yes, the genetically strong survive and thus their genes survive and are passed on, but I just don't believe the process all started with one cell and then just naturally proceeded until all the life forms we have today were attained -- I don't think God is that slow. NOr do I think it's possible --nor do I think the theory can explain how we evolved male-female counterparts in most species. We needed the sex characteristics to procreate in the first place. We were definitely designed.
and you may agree with the last statement? But many who believe in Evolution would not. Darwin's theory is very important to atheists as an explanation for our existance without God.
I just read where someone has come close to "inventing life" in a lab with the language of DNA components?? --not sure -have to look it up --it was in Time or Newsweek recently.
Proves intelligence behind life to me.
I believe God did it all, not with natural selection per se, but with the components of the cell --maybe a divine art team or just HIs Divine Brain/Mind designing on a drawing board and inventing every flower --every creature --every plant using the components of the cells -- with the potential of creating and producing additional varieties through natural selection and cross-breeding within a life form/kind of creature. (I'd say species --but we refer to various species of dogs within the dog category, so I'm not sure what word I need to describe the category of ALL DOGS.) A barrier was built in --such that dogs don't parent cats and apes don't parent humans, not in Prof. Stierman's "billions of years" and "unimaginably old earth." Bacteria are always bacteria no matter how many generations go by--
I'm not at all concerned about the so-called "false pretenses" under which the arrogant evolutionists were willing to be interviewed by the famous Ben Stein for a movie about evolution issue. They would not have participated if they had known he didn't agree with them right off the bat. There would have been no movie.
So Stein failed to tell them which side of the issue his film would take. And why should he? I assume he just announced the topic --not his perspective --and they assumed, being he was a HOllywood Jewish person that he would agree with them. However, if they read any conservative publications, they should have been suspicious for he is known among conservatives as a conservative--and sometimes that means conservative about faith and science, also.
Was Mudrake similarly upset when Michael Moore did it for his movies --that is, put people in his film who didn't want to be there and didn't want to help HIS cause??? or Borat for that matter? Of course not. When the tables are turned, it's all of a sudden unethical sneaky journalism.
Ever known journalists to NOT be sneaky when they intend to be unflattering?? which is typical for films on controversy. Candor is all.
Actually, I didn't think he represented the evolutionists in an unflattering or dishonest light --just represented what they really thought and said --whereas had they known he intended to be critical of their point of view, they would not have granted the interviews --hence, no film.
As for the Smithsonian guy and the Hispanic astronomer --I had read about both of them previously. They WERE somehow victims of viewpoint discrimination and disrespect even if Stein got the details wrong. Perhaps Stein misunderstood the exact details of their circumstances? They all quite candidly said they knew they had paid a price for expressing respect for ID scientists and science. Their stories are not new to the ID news followers.
Stein got the basics right--there is viewpoint discrimination in academia.
The Blade prof-interviewee in Yonke's article about the movie demonstrated it as well. He had NO respect for the science knowledge and abilities of anyone who didn't believe Darwin's theory. Such people ARE being discriminated against in classrooms and in various institutions as "know-nothings"--or as one writer put it --like a so-called mathematician who says 2 + 2 = 5.
IN FACT, I BELIEVE THE DISCRIMINATION IS SO SEVERE, THAT THOSE CHRISTIANS WHO HOLD HIGH SCIENCE POSITIONS DARE NOT ADMIT THAT THEY DON'T SWALLOW DARWIN WHOLE and dare not admit that ID scientists DO science --saying it is just a religious view. When, in fact, it is certainly science to point out the complex interdependence of every feature of the cell and the "language" behind it--suggesting intelligence behind the design of every cell.
As for the Holocaust --Darwin's theory of evolution, where believed to be factual, DOES LEND ITSELF to Eugenics, and Marxism's violence in order to attain the overthrow of the bourgeois by the proletariat and moral-free cruelty to those who are disabled and genetically "inferior." It lends itself to disrespect of the Bible as truth -and to atheism. True or not, AND applicable to the 21st century view of Darwin's theory or not, the theory has been USED to advance and justify in godless minds nefarious ideologies and causes.
Yes, Darwin is quoted as saying that "of course, we can't apply limits on animal suffering to human life --prohibiting the breeding of defective people." (Not a quote.)
He showed that he knew how his theory could be WRONGLY misused in application to defective humans.
But Stein pointed out the FACT that American medical science embraced the Darwin view of natural selection to justify preventing disabled people from parenting even though Darwin gave a nod to the idea that THAT would be wrong.
YET, IT IS VIEWED AS JUSTIFIABLE TODAY TO ABORT DEFECTIVE CHILDREN! We are STILL legitimating the elimination of people who are unwanted, defective, AND EVEN THE HEALTHY who "they" say will be born into poverty and neglect and thus have criminal tendencies.
Any crime reduction stats are attributed to aborting the children of "the underclasses" of teen mothers,etc.
OCD at its apex.
from barb:
A barrier was built in --such that dogs don't parent cats and apes don't parent humans,
I doubt that. the limitations of change were not necessarily an intentional goal of the design, but if they exist, they are probably just an incidental part of good functional design. irreducable complexity, which is perhaps the primary form of a barrier isn't there to prevent common descent or any evolution through purely natural means. it's there because that's just how the design worked out. It's there just because some good designs didn't happen to be reducable such that there is a gradual succession of functionality at each graduated step of stripped down complexity.
Really, Rob, everything God designs would be "intentional." And that's not to deny the ongoing creativity that expresses itself through cross-breeding and human manipulation within life forms --the way broccoli was made.
I'm sure He didn't intend us to crossbreed with animals and produce kidimals since it doesn't happen! In fact, that's the big barrier in the D. theory. That's not to say there aren't genetic flaws and accidents allowed due to the Fall of Man and our subsequent imperfection, disease and disability, etc.
what you been smokin'?
my point is, if God didn't create through evolution, and if evolution is something that we just imagined, then there's no reason to think that God had created with evolution in mind... accept in as far as he is omnisicient and knows the possilbe fairy tails that we could tell. What you were saying could be interpreted as suggesting that God designed against evolution and I'm saying, he wasn't concerned with the issue at all as if he'd have to worry along the lines of "gee, if I don't put these lines into the gene code, some dog might evolve into a cat." Just because that is our concern in our epistemic situation doesn't mean it would be God's concern long before someone invented the notion.
let me put this another way. The universe and the divine purpose often doesn't revolve around our little controversies.
and again irreducable complexity is not their to prevent naturalistic evolution. It's there simply because that is how some good designs work, and it happens to be in conflict with the conception of naturalistic evolution.
Post a Comment