Posted on 04/17/2008 11:21:43 AM PDT by Aristotelian
As the onslaught of new emails-comments from believers/disbelievers pours in over this Ben Stein movie, Expelled, I am amused, appalled and mystified at the whole thing, and the posture of those are so adamantly in favor of adding "In the beginning..." to the nation's science curricula.
It's "not about religion," ID/Creationists/Monkey Trial adherents say. Yes, it is. Doesn't lying bother you? You want your religion imposed on America's kids in science classrooms. You want to "test" and "debunk" Evolution as a "belief system." And then you don't want YOUR belief system, which can't withstand tests under any of those criteria, given the same scrutiny.
Which chapter and verse does the Bible first use the word "hypocrite?"
What's the old saying, 'Never debate religion?' We should ALL remember that one in light of this movie, a cynical effort to let Stein prove that "there's a sucker born every minute" still applies.
But here goes...
People who have no trouble believing that billions of prayers are listened to and answered (or ignored "in mysterious ways") by a bearded guy in a bathrobe find the statistical probabilities of life emerging from chemistry and biology "far fetched." Thus, they cling to their worldview, untroubled by critical thoughts, assured they have "undermined" the godless Darwin because "the numbers can't be right."
People who can't get their heads around the numbers--the probabilities that science deals in --are still willing to be suckered in by this month's "Bible code."
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.orlandosentinel.com ...
Please explain ID Theory.
Darwin himself said that his theory would be invalidated if there were any construct found that could not have developed through slight variations over time.
We all now that the fossil record shows a complete, unbroken line of slight changes from the single, self-generated cell to the human, and clearly explains the Cambrian explosion, and that there has never been a need by any evos to fake a fossil to support the theory.
That’s some funny sh!t right there.
There is plenty on the web about ID theory. So I won’t repeat it here. But I do have two questions for you.
1. How does evolution explain the transition from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction?
2. The Universe is governed by laws, such as the laws of physics. Where did the laws come from?
It would be great if ID became a subject of debate among the presidential candidates. What would McPain say?
If any of those laws of physics were off by even a small percentage, the universe, and especially life, would not exist.
ID theory is based on the premise that if you find information in empirical data, that information had to be organized intelligently.
You don’t find tablets in Egypt with information on them and immediately assume that the info “self organized” - unless, for some reason, the existance of ancient Egyptians threatens your worldview.
Says who...
That link will provide you with a large amount of information.
Well-stated.
Unfortunately, too many conservatives haven't learned enough about science and religion to know the difference between the two.
If there is so much evidence of evolution why does my college text book on evolution contain so much misinformation?
For example, it used the famous Peppered Moth experiment as proof of natural selection.
Was the Peppered Moth experiment good science in your opinion?
The evolution taught in high schools and colleges is full of proven distortions.
“Although the experiments were not perfect, they were not fatally flawed.”
Except the experiments didn’t provide an example of natural selection because they were botched.
What do you think of the circular logic homologies?
That ‘talkorigins’ site claims: “Homology is not defined as similarity due to common ancestry and then used as evidence for common ancestry.”
From my college text: “Structures that are shared by species on the basis of descent from a common ancestor are called homologies. Homologies alone are reliable indicators of evolutionary relationship.”
Its clear that my text is engaged in circular reasoning despite what the ‘talkorigins’ apologists say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.