Anyone planning on going to see Expelled starring Ben Stein

[SFP]

Marcia, are you a missionary?

[SparrowsNest]

OK, responding to several things, here goes... ;)

 

We do choose our own meanings.

 

 

Genie, yes, we choose our own meanings. What I am saying is that all of these meanings cannot be simultaneously true, because they contradict each other.

 

For no other reason than because we exist and we know we exist

 

I would submit that consciousness cannot be what creates meaning, because consciousness itself is merely a random occurence. How can meaninglessness create meaning?

 

Life has meaning because we can love.

 

I have a hard time understanding why love would be privileged as the transcendent, meaning-center of life. In a materialist worldview, love is ultimately nothing more than the experience of certain hormones, chemicals, electrical impulses, survival mechanisms, and the like. In what way can love, over and above any other perceived emotion, give meaning if it is nothing more than the product of certain environmental influences?

 

I don't see how the way I (or the universe) got here should have any bearing on my determination that my life has meaning.

 

But surely it does. Origins mythology exposes the fundamental assumptions that shape a person's, a religion's, a nation's worldview. It usually explains the 'Why' of existence. These ideas have profound consequences on our view of ourselves, each other, and our world. Of course you *are* here, but I cannot help but think that you've considered the question 'yes, I am, but how and why?'

 

And, am I a missionary? No. But that is one of the most complimentary questions I've ever been asked. :)

[pixelroper]

faith requires no proof, real science does not operate by faith

 

Which is "why" so much is labeled as a religion despite it not being outwardly resembling/organized as such.

 

I think Stein is trying to point that out.

[SnowWhite]

I agree, and I believe Stein's movie is more about freedom of speech and freedom to practice science than about anti-evolutionism. He's saying, "Stop the Censorship" and I'm wondering why the normally pro-freedom posters are suddenly in favor of censorship?

[genie]

OK, responding to several things, here goes... ;)

 

Genie, yes, we choose our own meanings. What I am saying is that all of these meanings cannot be simultaneously true, because they contradict each other.

 

I'm pretty sure I've addressed this one already.

 

 

 

 

Of course you *are* here, but I cannot help but think that you've considered the question 'yes, I am, but how and why?'

 

 

 

Well of course I have considered the question. But as I stated before, the answer or lack of answer to that question does not determine whether my life has meaning. You only believe it does and can see it no other way because the meaning you choose for your life requires it to be that way. Your meaning is tied to your creation. My meaning is tied to my existence, regardless of how that existence came to be.

[Crissy]

I agree, and I believe Stein's movie is more about freedom of speech and freedom to practice science than about anti-evolutionism. He's saying, "Stop the Censorship" and I'm wondering why the normally pro-freedom posters are suddenly in favor of censorship?

 

I read this entire thread this morning, but I admit to doing so with only one-half a cup of coffee in my system. :D

Still, I missed the post(s) calling for censorship. Where did that happen?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I agree, and I believe Stein's movie is more about freedom of speech and freedom to practice science than about anti-evolutionism. He's saying, "Stop the Censorship" and I'm wondering why the normally pro-freedom posters are suddenly in favor of censorship?

 

I'm not at all, if you're talking about me. I'm against deception and twisting people's words. It's not even about the content. I think it's too bad they couldn't have made an ID film that made their point without all the smoke and mirrors.

 

I'm deeply disappointed in Ben Stein.

[genie]

I'm wondering why the normally pro-freedom posters are suddenly in favor of censorship?

 

Maybe I should go back and reread this thread, but I haven't seen that. I haven't seen someone trying to have it taken out of the theaters, or actively trying to stop it from being seen. That would be censorship. They are simply stating their opinions on the content of the movie and the process by which it was made. Even if one were to claim that no one should waste their money seeing it, that's not censorship.

[Jenny in Atl]

I agree, and I believe Stein's movie is more about freedom of speech and freedom to practice science than about anti-evolutionism. He's saying, "Stop the Censorship" and I'm wondering why the normally pro-freedom posters are suddenly in favor of censorship?

 

I don't see anyone in favor of censorship in this thread. From what I have watched of the movie's preview, I see what Stein's argument will be, and I can see his point. However, I can say maybe academia's over zealous behavior about ID maybe part of an overall reaction to organized religion's long history of trying to suppress science. This separation stems from this history, does it not? Anytime something was discovered that went against Church doctrine it was hidden.

[SparrowsNest]

You only believe it does and can see it no other way because the meaning you choose for your life requires it to be that way. Your meaning is tied to your creation. My meaning is tied to my existence, regardless of how that existence came to be.

 

You'd be surprised what I can see other ways. ;) I have really said, I am fairly sure, next to nothing about what my beliefs may or may not have been prior to my belief in Christ.

 

By existence, you mean something like your consciousness of your existence, no? I ask because rocks or viruses exist, but (I assume) you don't think they have meaning the way humans do in that they are not conscious. If this is true, why is consciousness privileged? How is it different than, say, digestion?

[SnowWhite]

I read this entire thread this morning, but I admit to doing so with only one-half a cup of coffee in my system. :D

Still, I missed the post(s) calling for censorship. Where did that happen?

 

Ben Stein is in favor of stopping the censorship of scientists. That's the censorship I'm talking about. Not anyone on this forum wanting to censor Ben Stein.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Ben Stein is in favor of stopping the censorship of scientists. That's the censorship I'm talking about. Not anyone on this forum wanting to censor Ben Stein.

 

I'm against him calling for this by using deceptive means. (And that's what I was talking about, as well.)

[pixelroper]

However, I can say maybe academia's over zealous behavior about ID maybe part of an overall reaction to organized religion's long history of trying to suppress science. This separation stems from this history, does it not? Anytime something was discovered that went against Church doctrine it was hidden.

 

Again human limitations,

 

and faith vs science. The efforts to debunk faiths by science, through science. It comes down to Laws, the Laws of a higher being, the Laws(not theories) of science, and the elevating of man to the higher being status-- in order to declare his Law. An elevation of something is naturally required to impose one law over someone else's law.

 

Jenny in Alt I am not disagreeing w/you just bouncing off your statement as an excuse to ramble...

[Elaine]

Are you asking me? Because if someone showed up once in awhile just to blast the secularist I would be appalled. And offended on their behalf.

 

It is the tone. It is the trollish nature. It is the lack of interaction on non-controversial topics. It is the post and run technique.

 

Word, dawg.;)

[SnowWhite]

I don't see anyone in favor of censorship in this thread. From what I have watched of the movie's preview, I see what Stein's argument will be, and I can see his point. However, I can say maybe academia's over zealous behavior about ID maybe part of an overall reaction to organized religion's long history of trying to suppress science. This separation stems from this history, does it not? Anytime something was discovered that went against Church doctrine it was hidden.

 

IMNSHO, censorship and the "blacklisting" of scientists who don't line up with currently accepted scientific thought is wrong regardless of any past history of religion suppressing science. Religion suppressed science, so now we should continue to suppress science (or individual scientists) if its findings might support, NOT religion, but the existence of an Intelligent Designer?

 

See, I haven't seen the movie (of course), but the trailers came across as a pro-free speech, pro-scientific research, anti-suppression statement.

 

Also I agree with the poster (sorry, I don't remember which one) who believes we would be surprised if we actually knew where scientific research would eventually lead in, say, 1000 years.

[Jenny in Atl]

IMNSHO, censorship and the "blacklisting" of scientists who don't line up with currently accepted scientific thought is wrong regardless of any past history of religion suppressing science. Religion suppressed science, so now we should continue to suppress science (or individual scientists) if its findings might support, NOT religion, but the existence of an Intelligent Designer?

 

See, I haven't seen the movie (of course), but the trailers came across as a pro-free speech, pro-scientific research, anti-suppression statement.

 

Also I agree with the poster (sorry, I don't remember which one) who believes we would be surprised if we actually knew where scientific research would eventually lead in, say, 1000 years.

 

But I would gather any of these blacklisted scientist can find funding from private universities, even the US government under the current administration. Are they truly being kept from their work? I have no issue with those who want to prove the idea of an ID. I see nothing keeping them from doing it. No one is being throw in jail.

 

And I honestly hope mankind is around in 1000 years to discover what wonderful things you think we will uncover.

[pixelroper]

Only if it involves a time machine:D

 

Seriously go ahead and list provable, concrete data that can only lead to one logical conclusion, I'd be more than happy to consider it.

 

 

As I haven't received a response yet

 

if this evidence existed then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Evolution would cease to be referred to as a theory and become the Law of Evolution.

[Jenny in Atl]

Again human limitations,

 

and faith vs science. The efforts to debunk faiths by science, through science. It comes down to Laws, the Laws of a higher being, the Laws(not theories) of science, and the elevating of man to the higher being status-- in order to declare his Law. An elevation of something is naturally required to impose one law over someone else's law.

 

Jenny in Alt I am not disagreeing w/you just bouncing off your statement as an excuse to ramble...

 

I actually got to hang out in the Physics Dept at GSU many years ago. None of the profs sat around saying, "what can we discover that will debunk faith in God?" Not saying that some might, but I really think they have better reasons for their research.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

As I haven't received a response yet

 

if this evidence existed then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Evolution would cease to be referred to as a theory and become the Law of Evolution.

 

Pixelroper, I didn't not post because the evidence doesn't exist.

[genie]

You'd be surprised what I can see other ways. ;) I have really said, I am fairly sure, next to nothing about what my beliefs may or may not have been prior to my belief in Christ.

 

Nor have I said what my beliefs may or may not have been prior to my disbelief in Christ. ;) But you asked a why question, and I and others have tried to answer. Am I to assume that you really weren't wanting an answer, but were more interested in trying to show us the error of our ways? I suppose it could be said that our answers were trying to show you the error of your ways, but only as they pertain to your misrepresentation of us. We've tried to help you understand our thought processes, because you asked.

 

By existence, you mean something like your consciousness of your existence, no? I ask because rocks or viruses exist, but (I assume) you don't think they have meaning the way humans do in that they are not conscious.

 

Rocks have a purpose (with a lower-case "p") but I, at this point, have no reason to believe they have meaning, in the human sense, or possibly even in the animal sense as well. Of course, we could really get philosophical and debate whether rocks and viruses even do exist outside of our consciousness, but that we be an extreme tangent.

 

If this is true, why is consciousness privileged? How is it different than, say, digestion?

 

Why would it not be privileged?

[genie]

I actually got to hang out in the Physics Dept at GSU many years ago. None of the profs sat around saying, "what can we discover that will debunk faith in God?" Not saying that some might, but I really think they have better reasons for their research.

 

Hmm, never saw that in the physics department at UNC, either. But hey, we're just two people. ;)

[pixelroper]

I actually got to hang out in the Physics Dept at GSU many years ago. None of the profs sat around saying, "what can we discover that will debunk faith in God?" Not saying that some might, but I really think they have better reasons for their research.

 

I didn't mean to imply that was their goal. I have a physics bro and a math bro and they wouldn't say this either. They do however throw out "proof", "facts" and "laws" which lead to physical/concrete truths.

 

Doesn't it often/always lead to this though?

 

My impression was evolution was the vehicle for a "freedom of speech" debate in Stein's movie. This thread very quickly went into a critique of creationism as a valid argument, as though if it weren't "Why even bother discussing it?" As evolution is a scientific theory and creationism has its own scientific theories they should be allowed to be heard, the burden of proof is there for all sides, except for the faiths (which for some creationism is a part of) as by definition, it doesn't involve proof of anything. That is another type of debate if one chooses to debate it, which leads us back to science.

[genie]

Pixelroper, I didn't not post because the evidence doesn't exist.

 

Just for my personal clarification, do you believe the evidence for evolution doesn't exist, or it just hasn't been discovered?

[Caroline]

I actually got to hang out in the Physics Dept at GSU many years ago. None of the profs sat around saying, "what can we discover that will debunk faith in God?" Not saying that some might, but I really think they have better reasons for their research.

 

I hung out with physicists at Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, the National Institute of Standards, Naval Research Labs, Sandia, Oak Ridge National Labs, and NASA to name a few. (I worked at these places or with people from these places, and I attended national meetings with many scientists and engineers over the years.) I never heard anyone say, "What can we discover that will debunk faith in God?" either. (Although I may have heard one or two say, "What can we do to debunk faith in the GSU physics program?" Just kidding...)

[Storm Bay]

I'm not sure. But I always thought that Intelligent Design was different than creationism and gap theology. I've even heard it said it's not Christian. Are there different forms of Intelligent Design theories? I do remember reading one that was definitely not Christian.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Just for my personal clarification, do you believe the evidence for evolution doesn't exist, or it just hasn't been discovered?

 

Errr... neither. The evidence exists aplenty. There's a mind-boggling amount of evidence for evolutionary theory. But it's impossible to know even where to start making such a list on this board. I would instead suggest reading material for self study.

 

I couldn't post what was requested because the subject is so massive (and frankly beyond my ability to explain it at times) that I couldn't even begin an answer. And I'm so, SO tired right now. I couldn't begin to think of where to start such a discussion, honestly.

[genie]

Errr... neither. The evidence exists aplenty. There's a mind-boggling amount of evidence for evolutionary theory. But it's impossible to know even where to start making such a list on this board. I would instead suggest reading material for self study.

 

I couldn't post what was requested because the subject is so massive (and frankly beyond my ability to explain it at times) that I couldn't even begin an answer. And I'm so, SO tired right now. I couldn't begin to think of where to start such a discussion, honestly.

 

Ack. I misread your original comment. Boy, isn't it amazing how one little word (in this case, "not") can make such a HUGE difference in meaning?? Sorry!

[pixelroper]

I'm not sure. But I always thought that Intelligent Design was different than creationism and gap theology. I've even heard it said it's not Christian. Are there different forms of Intelligent Design theories? I do remember reading one that was definitely not Christian.

 

 

ID is different than creationism. ID proponents include some Christians but many others, such as those who believe we might be the product of Aliens. It just speaks to an intelligent designer. Creationism and its theories are directly related to a literal reading of the Bible. Usually Christian ID proponents have more allegorical interpretations of Creation, while maintaining/believing God as the Creator.

 

Really the whole thing is a hairball. :D

[Storm Bay]

This seems to be the case. I am reminded in RL often every time I bring up ID to creationists. Creationism is the literal translation of Genesis.

 

Actually, some believe that the gap theology is the literal translation of Genesis, because the first word "was" in verse 2 in the Hebrew can be translated became or proved (but not was), and they go with became due to a whole lot of other theology. I'm NOT starting a debate, just thought you might like to know that. They believe that life as it was was destroyed and then the lets are remaking things that existed before. There is controversy, of course, with animals--some say they existed without our soul life before, some say only plant life existed before. They do believe that everything from the first "let there be" is literally 6 days and nights.

[pixelroper]

 

But let me ask: Do you accept that micro-evolution is an observable fact?

 

 

 

Yes-- but that is a far cry from macro evolution. Would you agree?

[Storm Bay]

Again, you hold your beliefs as the "only" and therefore you can never full debate. To you a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, anyone who does not believe as you do is wrong and therefor worth killing? Wow!

 

I don't think that's what the poster was saying!!!!! I am a Christian and I don't think so at all. In fact, the New Testament teaches the exact opposite. We're to be kind to all men (meaning mankind), God loves all and wants all to be saved (but not all will answer that call). Even Jesus, who was not ministering to all yet (that started with the day of Pentecost) healed people who were not Jewish, and his time on earth was to minister to the Jewish people.

 

That said, there are radicals of a number of religions who do believe in killing others just because they don't believe what they do. Radicals, and not always sane people, IMO. But I also know of atheists and agnostics who are jingoistic. Hate is hate, and it's not restricted to any one group.

[Jenny in Atl]

 

That said, there are radicals of a number of religions who do believe in killing others just because they don't believe what they do. Radicals, and not always sane people, IMO. But I also know of atheists and agnostics who are jingoistic. Hate is hate, and it's not restricted to any one group.

 

And I believe she misunderstood what I said. I said I was sad over the fact that people continue to kill each other over their beliefs (all sorts of beliefs or lack there of). She asked why I was sad if I thought we were all just a cosmic fluke. My reply was a bit harsh but her dismissal of this fact was shocking to me.

[Storm Bay]

Well I guess it could be called that... we sometime refer to the law of gravity, but it is as much a 'theory' as evolution.

 

A scientific theory *is* something supported by lots of facts and experimental results...and its proven ability to predict future happenings.

From the scientific standpoint, evolution is next-door to a given.

 

You haven't gotten a response, because it isn't easy to convey the chain of evidence succinctly enough to post here... and I'm not sure it is possible to do so convincingly, and if it were, I doubt I could do it!

 

But let me ask: Do you accept that micro-evolution is an observable fact?

 

 

**Please do note: I am an Orthodox Jew - G-d's creation of the universe is, to me, a given. I am speaking above from the viewpoint of sound scientific thinking.

 

 

I realize you didn't ask me this, but I'm interrupting!

 

What I would consider part of proof are fossilized links between species. I'd also like proof that both uniformitarianism and radioactive dating are true and accurate. Everything I've seen and read about radioactive dating is that it is based on a theory that has not been proven, and that results are conflicting. This observation began in when I was an agnostic and in a secular biology program.

 

In addition, I'd like uniformitarianists to explain, logically, how a mammoth can be quick frozen with temperate-growing plants still in its mouth and stomach. There are many other things, too. DNA evidence, while fascinating, is not proof as the closeness of DNA to other life can be just as easily, and to some more easily, explained by a Creator.

 

As for microevolution, I think this is an interesting subject. But I'm not sure how much of this is evolution as we think of it (mutation resulting in a stronger species) and how much is the result of genes already in the gene pool that suddenly become helpful as in the case of those moths (I've forgotten their names. The ones where the black ones used to get eaten most as they rested on trees with light coloured bark, but when pollution darkened the bark, the white ones were easy targets and the black ones became the majority--evolution really, or just a new balance?) Either way, microevolution is very different than macroevolution because it doesn't involve long periods of time (as I've seen it) or speciation. I don't see it as proof of macroevolution.

[Storm Bay]

I am confused by this. Pasuk beis says:

 

"v'ha'aretz haya tohu va'vohu"( standard translation: 'and the earth was formless and empty')

 

Haya - heh-yud-heh is the shoresh in question,

 

The meanings I can think of for that shoresh are: to come to pass, to come into being (sometimes to become), to fall out, and (the most common usage) to be.

 

Do you know what their source is for asserting 'proved' and, more importantly, *not* 'was' as meanings for this shoresh?

 

Honestly, it sounds to be at first glance like someone taking a dictionary list of meanings (or the one I gave above) and plugging them in without understanding the nuances.... I'm not sure how to go about conveying the nuances without a dozen different textual examples for each of those shades of haya.

 

Are they proposing that it be translated 'and the earth became formless and void'? I'm not sure what theological point that would serve....

 

I know you were passing on what you've heard, but if you are able to clarify any of the above for me, I would appreciate it! Otherwise it will chafe at my mind until I track it all down - translation issues are irresistable to me! :)

 

 

I'm going to pm you on this as I'd like to discuss this, and have some questions for you, but don't want to stir up another huge controversy here.

[Plaid Dad]

I do remember reading one that was definitely not Christian.

 

I'd be interested to know more about this. You can PM me if you'd rather not get into it here. What I'm most interested in is what about this particular ID theory did not jibe with Christianity from your perspective.

[elizabeth]

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3992_statements_from_religious_org_12_19_2002.asp

[jail warden]

And remember... 80% of the DNA strand is used for nothing. While beautiful you gotta think a designer would have come up with something simpler.

 

 

For now you think that 80% of DNA is nothing, but you know that Science is learning more and more every day. Some day we may know what that part is actually used for.

 

But, actually I think that it stands more to show that there is a Creator because I don't see a big heap of stuff exploding in a universe and creating something so complex as we humans and our DNA. If we came from evolution then the 80% that you state is nothing would have been gone a long time ago because only the necessary things keep going in evolution, the unnecessary dies off or is discarded.

 

And yes evolution is a theory. When you talk of the beginning of earth and time, all it can be is someone's hypothesis. As we've been learning in science, you look at the evidence and make your best guess as to what you believe happened from the evidence. You weren't there and neither was I. Yes, our beliefs will color which hypothesis we choose to believe, but it's still a hypothesis, therefore a theory.

[Phred]

Phred, you wrote "Nobody is trying to rule out gods... but there isn't enough evidence to rule them in either."

 

How would you classify books like "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins?

 

 

(Hope I don't sound snarky, just interested in what you'd have to say)

Hi Jacqui. When I said that I meant here. On this board. Out there many are trying to rule out gods. Or at least be heard with their opinions that gods are no longer necessary. Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens. I suspect that these men speak for many who simply go along with the crowd. Of those that call themselves Christians how many go to church on Christmas and Easter and call it a day? How many of those never really think about their faith and if they did would simply drop it? I often wonder how many atheists exist among us but are afraid to say so for fear that they will be made pariahs within the community.

 

So how do I classify those books? Certainly not science. More as the vanguard of a wave of people who are starting to find their voice.

 

For the record, I too am an atheist.

[Phred]

ID is not creationism. Some creationists would object to being lumped in with ID'ers. Meanwhile, my issue is not to prove creationism correct at this point, but to allow it to lay on the table with all the other implausible, fantastic, improvable theories until mankind has come up with an absolute, or has met its collective Maker trying. ;)

In order to have a place at the table you need to have evidence. That's the price of admission. Do you understand the necessity of the scientific method and the requirement of everyone living up to the same standard? You can place your hypothesis on the table with all the other religious ones that have no evidence to support them. But if you wish to compare yours to the scientific ones you need to have evidence to support yours. It's that simple.

[Phred]

Hi Regina... thank you for the reply. Let me just say this. I don't know if you're aware but organizations like answersingenesis.com and discovery.org spend millions of dollars each year propagating the disinformation they call ID and creation science. Now we have this movie by Ben Stein. You ask for scientists to be able to pursue this area unfettered? It's always been about getting funding to be able to do so. So why aren't these organization funding research instead of PR efforts and nonsense like the creation museum? If we're going to treat God as a scientific project then let's do it properly. Why are we fussing over scientists being held back by funding issues? The funding exists and the results, if found, would more than make up for the cost.

 

So why is there no creation science being performed by groups devoted to creation science?

[pixelroper]

First I think we agree more than disagree.

 

There is no valid scientific evidence for intelligent design or creationism (and I speak as someone who believes, with all my being, that G-d is the author of everything), and no proposed model for comparing intelligent versus random development... with research which could then bring any further light on the subject....

 

I'm not sure what you are saying...

I think there needs to be scientific evidence to support a theory.

 

I should note that I am bothered by the two different uses of 'theory' being used in your paragraph above.

 

 

I did not mean to use it differently. I do not mean faith to be theory. I have heard of several theories by scientists trying to stick to Genesis literally.

 

 

The theory of Gravity is not the same as gravity existing...gravity is "real," don't the theories try to explain the "why" or "how"?

 

ID has claims of mathematical proof. This is probably the reason evolutionist do not care for it, if mathematical proof exists it is significantly better than anything evolution has. I would also point out that in order to make a theory "go away" disproving it is required, which if the mathematical proof exists for purposeful design it would negate the random(evolution).

 

No one has brought up the mathematical proof stuff, maybe one more qualified will address that.

[nmoira]

 

I would submit that consciousness cannot be what creates meaning, because consciousness itself is merely a random occurence. How can meaninglessness create meaning?

Consciousness constructs its own meaning. Our brains are huge, relatively speaking, because we have evolved as tool using, speaking omnivores (omnivores tend to be more intelligent because they have more food choices and have to learn what's OK to eat and what isn't.). Language allows us to communicate thoughts, feelings, dreams, fears, secrets, to each other. We share experience and are enhanced by it. Humans are different than most animals because the things we are conscious of include the collective memories of our ancestors (through print, education, world of mouth, etc.). While some do get caught up in the angst of the randomness of existence and live a life of bleak depression with black clothes and eyeliner this is not the norm, and they still construct meaning in this randomness -- the meaning is the randomness. Even President Bush claims to have read Camus (though I suspect this was only because L'Etranger is a short book).

[mcconnellboys]

That's a very good question. I don't normally read info on "creation science" and know nothing, really, about it. I know that they seem to have embraced ID over the past few years, even though that's not how ID started out.

 

I would think that they *would* be engaging scientists to conduct experiments. Is that not the case? Or is it that scientists who are engaged by them are accused of somehow doing faulty science, or have their science dismissed, and/or have scientific journals which refuse to publish them, etc.?

 

I'm getting the impression, regarding Stein's movie effort, that there is some body of scientists who are now or have been in past working as part of the mainstream of science who are saying that if any of their research begins to raise issues of a creator, then they're somehow being dismissed or cut off from continuing those studies within the mainstream of science.

 

I think I read a book several years ago now by a professor named Schwarz that fit this same sort of criteria. I don't know exactly how I ended up with that book in my hand, but I was intrigued because he was so highly educated, with multiple advanced degrees in several fields, and was initially at an ivy league school, maybe Harvard, I can't quite recall. He somehow got on a path of doing research into something he called the G.O.D. principal. I think it meant something like guiding, organizing designer, or something like that. He ended up losing his job and I think he was last out at the University of Arizona, or somewhere in the Las Vegas area. It was the first experience I had of reading about a scientist being dismissed from his position due to his area of research leading him into previously unexplored areas.

 

Now that I'm reading about Thimerasol issues, I'm learning about a number of high level doctors/researchers in not only the U.S., but also Great Britain and elsewhere, who have also been dismissed, threatened, had their reputations attacked, etc. because they're not following the party line.

 

So my only real contention here is that if the scientific community is not allowing scientists to pursue their research in an unfettered manner and go where that research leads them - wherever that may be; even if they don't like the answers they're getting - then that needs to change. If this movie can help bring such issues to the forefront, then I think it could serve a useful purpose.

 

If the scientific community is being supressed by its own members, or by the larger learning community of which they are a part, then we're no better off than we were when Galileo was put under house arrest by the church, are we?

[Phred]

I will definitely see the movie, I like Ben Stein and I appreciate what he is attempting to do. I think both theories need a platform in academia. No one was there to observe the beginning of earth or life, a main principle in science, so ID and evolution are both theories.

Phred says "there is no evidence for God" but I must disagree and say the creation itself and our conscience would suggest there may be a God. If you see a building you know there was a builder, if you see a beautiful painting you know there was an artist, many of you have heard this argument before. There is order and art and design in everything around us so I have a very hard time believing it all came about by random chance.

Here are my main questions and ones I think should be allowed to be asked in any classroom that values honest debate over scientific theories:

Where did the space for the universe come from?

Where did matter come from?

Where did the laws of the universe come from?

How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Where did energy come from to do all the organizing?

When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties?

Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

Which evolved first, the mucus lining to protect the lungs, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

Where are the transitional fossils? I mean there shouldn't be just a few, there should be billions and there is not one.

 

What is wrong with asking these questions in school?

I am guessing that is part of what Ben Stein is trying to get the public to think about.

You've already bought into a boatload of misconceptions. But, since the kids are quiet and I have a moment...

 

Let me try to explain what I know and if anyone can help me along please do.

 

To the best of our knowledge at this time the universe as we know it began at a single point in time about 13.7 billion years ago. What happened before this we don't know anything about at all. It's possible that this universe is one in a series of expansions and contractions that continues on and eventually the universe is going to contract again. The "Big Bang" as it's referred to is not an explosion but rather an expansion. Think of it as a loaf of raisin bread where all the raisins move away from each other and the dough expands. We know this because of something called the doppler effect. When examining the spectral shift of the galaxies it was noticed that the light from them is all shifted toward the red, as if they were all moving away from us at a high rate of speed. If you undo this expansion the universe must have been smaller, hotter and denser at some point in the past. Then, in the sixties microwave background radiation was discovered that confirmed the theory was true.

 

The term, "big bang" was coined by Fred Hoyle, a detractor, who is the same guy who tried to prove mathematically that evolution could never have happened. He was wrong about this...

 

So the universe began as a singularity. A single point of unimaginable density that began to expand and from this expansion came our universe. All matter that exists today was present then and is present today. Matter and energy are interchangeable. E=MC2. The laws of the universe are a part of the universe. People talk as if the laws have been set so that we could be here. We are here because we've adapted to the laws the way they are.

 

The theory of life coming from non-life is called abiogenesis. It is thought that on a primordial earth very simple molecules were the first self-replicating molecules. These didn't have to be complex or what we think of as life... they were just able to make copies of themselves. Once this ability was possible it wasn't long before life would be possible. In fact, the line between life and non-life would be blurry... at what point does the replicating molecule become alive? How complex must it be? When the earth first formed it was a pretty inhospitable place and less than a billion years later it was teeming with organisms that resembled blue-green algae. So at some point it jumped across that non-life boundary... but when?

 

And now we're into evolution.

 

And it seems you've borrowed those questions haven't you? Not even the questions are original. Tell you what... next time you want me to sit down and spend time on my Sunday answering questions the least you can do is actually ask them.

 

<slam>

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

(though I suspect this was only because L'Etranger is a short book).

 

No, you're mistaken. His favorite book is "I Am Charlotte Simmons." That's a really big book.

 

:D

 

(Sorry for the hijack.)

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

And now we're into evolution.

 

And it seems you've borrowed those questions haven't you? Not even the questions are original. Tell you what... next time you want me to sit down and spend time on my Sunday answering questions the least you can do is actually ask them.

 

<slam>

 

Geezopete.

[freethinkermom]

This is a primarily Christian board, but most people in the United States claim to be Christian. I certainly appreciate seeing posts of non-christians- makes me realize I'm not alone here- so please don't stop posting!

 

Don't worry. I am not going anywhere, although I might appear to dissapear aoccasionally because I have promised myself I will spend less time online and more time painting.

[HollyinNNV]

And now we're into evolution.

 

And it seems you've borrowed those questions haven't you? Not even the questions are original. Tell you what... next time you want me to sit down and spend time on my Sunday answering questions the least you can do is actually ask them.

 

<slam>

 

 

Hi,

Phred is referring to this website.

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=76

 

This is a website with a copyright. Maybe there is some kind of free use blip-but I didn't see it. It does say that the q's have been distributed but, I think one still has to reference the writer of the list of questions.

 

I did not compare all the questions, but the first few are identical.

Holly

[nmoira]

No, you're mistaken. His favorite book is "I Am Charlotte Simmons." That's a really big book.

 

:D

 

(Sorry for the hijack.)

Didn't say favourite book. :) It was 2006 and he was asked either what he'd read that year or had read over the summer (I think it was prior to the year he had planned to read a McCullough (sp?) biography). Here's a link. I googled to make sure I wasn't crazy. Here's a link.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Didn't say favourite book. :) It was 2006 and he was asked either what he'd read that year or had read over the summer (I think it was prior to the year he had planned to read a McCullough (sp?) biography). Here's a link. I googled to make sure I wasn't crazy. Here's a link.

 

I actually remember this. "We want a book report!"

 

Yes, indeedy.