Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Movie Review: Expelled

posted at 3:00 pm on April 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

While at CPAC in February, I had an opportunity to attend an advance screening of the new documentary, Expelled: The Movie. Ben Stein focuses on a perceived lack of intellectual freedom afforded to those who either believe in or investigate Intelligent Design theories in the scientific community. I wrote the following review at the time; the producers may have made some changes since, but I don’t believe it would change the thrust of my review. I plan on seeing the theatrical release this weekend, and would recommend it to everyone as at least a way to discuss the values and limitations of scientific inquiry and intellectual openness in American Academia.

The bloggers at CPAC received an invitation to screen a new documentary on academic intolerance called Expelled: The Movie this evening. The documentary features Ben Stein on a quest to understand the near-hysteria caused by scientists who so much as broach the idea of intelligent design in papers or in research. It follows Stein as he interviews professors denied tenure, editors fired, and journalists shunned for touching the subject even at its most innocuous levels.

Before discussing my feelings about the film, which is still in post-production and will not go into release until April, I should explain my approach to the ID/evolution debate. I believe evolution is demonstrably proven in enough examples to say that its effect on variation in species cannot be denied. The example I used tonight in discussing this with another viewer (certainly not the only example) is antibiotic effects on bacteria. Antibiotics that kill 99% of bacteria eventually promote the survival and the expansion of the 1% that resist them, created superbacteria that require another set of antibiotics to cure, and so on.

That said, evolution does not interfere with my faith in God. God certainly could have created the universe with a design that included life. The rational laws of nature would include evolution, as well as the myriad of other rational and mathematically provable mechanisms that undergird nature. In fact, the impulse of man to discover the rational laws of nature began with the belief in a rational God, as scientists understood nature’s rationality to reveal an intelligent Creator.

I’d go deeper than that, but Dinesh D’Souza covers it nicely enough already in his book What’s So Great About Christianity, and it’s getting late enough as it is. Suffice it to say that evolution doesn’t present a threat to my worldview.

Rationally, we have to admit that some use ID as an excuse to teach the more literal form of Creationism that has been used to argue against evolution entirely, especially against teaching evolution in primary-school classrooms. That admission does not appear in Expelled, which is a glaring omission. It tends to take out of context the frustration some scientists have about ID, and its place in polarizing the debate over its use. Properly framed, ID accepts all of the science without accepting its transformation into its own belief system.

What do I mean by that? In this, the film does an excellent job of demonstrating atheism as a belief system. Atheism as represented by Richard Dawkings and others in this film gets exposed as exactly the kind of belief system they claim to despise. They can’t prove God exists — and they can’t prove God doesn’t exist. They make the common fallacy of arguing that absence of evidence amounts to evidence of absence.

But in a way, this is all secondary to the real issue of the film: academic intolerance. The debate over ID vs Darwinism sets the table for a truly disturbing look at academia. Science should be about the free debate and research of ideas and hypotheses for duplicable results and provable theorems. However, as the examples Stein and the film provide amply show, the Darwinist academic establishment will brook no dissent from the orthodoxy — and scientists have to be shown with hidden faces to speak to the issue for the film.

Amusingly, Stein asks people how the first cell came to be. None of the scientists could give him a straight answer. Dawkins himself admits he doesn’t know and that no one else does, either — but postulates that aliens could have brought life to this planet, and then postulates that another alien civilization could have brought life to that planet, and so on. He then concedes that one entity could have been the original source … but insists that entity could not possibly have been God. For this he gives absolutely no evidence at all, relegating it as a belief system somewhat akin to Scientology.

All of this is extremely effective, as are the many allusions made to the Berlin Wall during the film. The theme runs throughout, and it explicitly refers to the defensive academic establishment as having built a wall that tramples on freedom of thought and discourse. Less effective is the heavy references to the Nazis in the movie. Although emotionally affecting for some obvious reasons, the fact is that while the Nazis were mostly Darwinists (along with a lot of other things), the vast majority of Darwinists aren’t Nazis. Certainly the eugenicists in Nazi Germany were mightily influenced by Darwinism, but America had its own eugenicists, which the film points out.

I should point out that the film has not finished production, and that changes will be made between now and its release in April. The filmmakers just completed an interview with Christopher Hitchens and will include it in the final cut. I believe other changes may be made which could address some of the criticisms I’ve written here.

Overall, though, the film presents a powerful argument not for intelligent design as much as for the freedom of scientific inquiry. If scientists get punished for challenging orthodoxy, we will not expand our learning but ossify it in concrete. Expelled: The Movie is entertaining, maddening, funny, and provocative, and well worth your time.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24

I think it has devolved since the first 1000 posts.

PrettyD_Vicious on April 21, 2008 at 12:00 AM

I’m glad you brought that up. One of you evolutionist can answer:

Do lifeforms de-evolve? Or does evolution only go in one direction?

Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 12:03 AM

PrettyD_Vicious on April 21, 2008 at 12:02 AM

almost… not every word, skimmed a few that were repetitive looking and didn’t follow every link…

TheCulturalist on April 21, 2008 at 12:05 AM

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 11:58 PM

I don’t want to speak for someone else, but I think he is saying that animals, ect. have not been observed in the process of evolving.

Johan Klaus on April 21, 2008 at 12:06 AM

right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 11:06 PM

Yes, sort of connects the dots nicely, doesn’t it? Some here may want to argue about some of the specifics put forth about Darwin’s influence, but…

“The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

-Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, chapter 6

…let’s not forget exactly what this man was all about.

labrat on April 21, 2008 at 12:06 AM

What do you even mean by degree of evolution?
RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 11:58 PM

Gee, if something evolves, doesn’t it go through a series of changes (hence the name e v o l u t i o n)…or do you thing it just goes Pooof! and it is complete…
So now you have a dilemma, if you can’t measure evolution, how do you know it exists?
pretty tough to answer huh?

right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 12:06 AM

That would have to be the saber tooth tiger that devolved. In a world where the strongest and best predators survive, why I’m betting the saber tooth tiger would best a normal tiger.

PrettyD_Vicious on April 21, 2008 at 12:07 AM

…let’s not forget exactly what this man was all about.

labrat on April 21, 2008 at 12:06 AM

Exactly, Hitler was a huge fan, Marx worshipped Darwin, as was many communist leaders, Pol Pot, the Chinese…the survival of the fittest…if you can’t defend yourself, then you are the prey.

right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 12:09 AM

restatement – I would bet that the saber tooth tiger would beat a normal tiger in a fight.

PrettyD_Vicious on April 21, 2008 at 12:10 AM

Okay we are over 2,000, a new record…

right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 12:11 AM

We did it, everyone. (With little contribution from me).

G’night to all.

ColtsFan, I like the Colts too. Although my team is Green Bay. (I’m a fan of your posts on religious issues.)

Good Night to all Hot Air posters!

Skidd on April 21, 2008 at 12:12 AM

I think that Charles Darwin, like Kinsey, fashioned his theories to match his beliefs.

Johan Klaus on April 21, 2008 at 12:12 AM

Okay we are over 2,000, a new record…

right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 12:11 AM

checks in the mail

TheCulturalist on April 21, 2008 at 12:12 AM

If evolution is really a science, and scientific arguments are put forward for it, and an ID proponent argues that some of the arguments are based on circular reasoning and bad science, can you really just reject the questions because the ID proponent is NOT completely naturalistic?

ID argues that the means of evolution, random genetic mutations over very long periods of time, is completely inadequate scientifically speaking to explain how complex structures with multiple mutual interdependencies just manage to evolve all together at the same time, when each of the new mutations would only be valuable in combination with the others.

The contention by the evolutionists is not just that ID is unscientific because it is not naturalistic, but that the questions raised by ID can all be rejected because ID is not scientific, because it is not naturalistic. Of course, if ID was naturalistic, it would ignore the problems of evolution because there was no alternative: anything supernatural had already been ruled out.

As an evolutionist said much more succinctly — and honestly — the primary reason to accept evolution is that the only alternative to evolution is special creation, which is clearly incredible.

“If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (D.M.S.Watson, “Adaptation,” Nature, Vol. 123 (1929), p. 233.)

By rejecting anything not naturalistic as not scientific, you ensure that any answer not naturalistic is immediately rejected. That may be fine for the purposes of discussion/investigation, but it destroys the ability of evolution to definitively answer questions about the origin of life, since only naturalistic approaches are considered.

I maintain the real question is not whether the belief in a Creator motivated the question, but whether the question can be evaluated scientifically. I have yet to see a plausible naturalistic explanation for the simultaneous development of mutations that only make sense if they occur simultaneously. If each individual mutation is truly independent and random, then all of them occurring together is a very big coincidence.

This is why ID is fought against. It raises questions that the old evolutionary theories can’t answer, so the only way to deal with them is to either agree it doesn’t make sense, or prevent the questions from being asked.

theregoestheneighborhood on April 21, 2008 at 12:14 AM

Exactly, Hitler was a huge fan, Marx worshipped Darwin, as was many communist leaders, Pol Pot, the Chinese…the survival of the fittest…if you can’t defend yourself, then you are the prey.

right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 12:09 AM

Yes…. of course !! Evolution has ONE shining attribute and one only. It allows you to deny God and still explain how we got here.

Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 12:15 AM

I think that Charles Darwin, like Kinsey, fashioned his theories to match his beliefs.

Johan Klaus on April 21, 2008 at 12:12 AM

I agree, and now the scientists have painted themselves in a corner…
goodnight, we did it, set a record. Tomorrow morning may bring another 500 or so once they see what has been written.
*
Anyone who believes in evolution, is a Gore loving liberal Democrat…that will get it kick started.

right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 12:15 AM

If evolutionists could realize that evolution is a theory rather than a fact, they wouldn’t be trying to hard to stamp out the possibility of ID catching on.

Look at the fossil record, back to the pre-Cambrian: simpler organisms preceded increasingly more variegated and complex ones, throughout geological time. That’s evolution: it’s a fact.

Natural selection is the accepted theory of how it occurred. It is well-established, and the source of constant refinement and discovery.

. . . Evolution only addresses how how life could evolve from simpler to more complex forms. It does not address how life began. You want to argue that evolution is a proven fact, but there is no scientific evidence for how life began: just a presumption that it began without God, and a bunch of speculation about how that could have happened.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 6:57 PM

That’s right, we don’t know how life on Earth first began, though it is plausible that natural selection began to operate on the first self-reproducing, RNA-like molecules. There are hypotheses and speculation, but no answers yet. YET. Eventually we will discover the answer(s). That is the promise of science.

Short-circuiting that research by smugly claiming, “God did it” is not science; it’s theology, and bad theology at that: every time man invokes supernatural dieties to fill in the gaps in his knowledge of the world, eventually the dieties are made irrelevant when the gaps are filled.

MrLynn on April 21, 2008 at 12:16 AM

Gute Nacht.

Johan Klaus on April 21, 2008 at 12:16 AM

Skidd on April 21, 2008 at 12:12 AM

Goodnight Skidd… thanks for your fine comments !

Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 12:16 AM

I’m late to this post, and I admire Ben Stein a great deal, but fighting evolution theory is a no-win situation at best for conservatives.
You can have BOTH G-d and evolution; they’re not mutually exclusive. I have never seen why that is so hard for so many people to see.
Einstein: G-d does not play dice.
Neils Bohr (to Einstein): Who are we to tell G-d how he designed the Universe?
btw – I am a professional geologist with lots of paleontological experience.

TexasJew on April 21, 2008 at 12:17 AM

DNA researchers are measuring evolution to the extent that they can tell the degree of change between any two species, and thus estimate when the species branched from a common ancestor.

The Buzz on April 21, 2008 at 12:17 AM

Thus, evolution and the Bible are completely incompatible.

fossten on April 18, 2008 at 3:38 PM

I’d rephrase that as pre-man evolution and creation is incompatible. In addition to the original sin=death, I’d add that original sin=evolution of the species. To wit, Gen 3:14-19, where the curse caused some animals to become deadly, and some plants to become prickly/poisonous. And again in Isa 11:6-9 when the wild become docile & harmless, as well as herbivores.

AH_C on April 21, 2008 at 12:19 AM

…As an evolutionist said much more succinctly — and honestly — the primary reason to accept evolution is that the only alternative to evolution is special creation, which is clearly incredible…
theregoestheneighborhood on April 21, 2008 at 12:14 AM

when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. sherlock holmes

Goodnight

right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 12:21 AM

DNA researchers are measuring evolution to the extent that they can tell the degree of change between any two species, and thus estimate when the species branched from a common ancestor.

The Buzz on April 21, 2008 at 12:17 AM

Morphologists do thjat as well, in using cladistics to reconcile outbranchings of genera.
Isn’t G-d’s creation great?

TexasJew on April 21, 2008 at 12:22 AM

That’s right, we don’t know how life on Earth first began, though it is plausible that natural selection began to operate on the first self-reproducing, RNA-like molecules.

MrLynn on April 21, 2008 at 12:16 AM

In your opinion, were these “first self-reproducing RNA-like molecules” alive….. or just machines?

Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 12:23 AM

TheCulturalist on April 21, 2008 at 12:05 AM

My first thought is Wow, he is good, but then my second thought is: 48 hours reading comments constantly, He needs a girl friend to distract him or else his genes will never evolve to the next state of human.

Have a good night.

PrettyD_Vicious on April 21, 2008 at 12:25 AM

Do lifeforms de-evolve? Or does evolution only go in one direction?

Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 12:03 AM

Obviously you are not married…

right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 12:26 AM

Do lifeforms de-evolve? Or does evolution only go in one direction?

Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 12:03 AM

Obviously you are not married…

right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 12:26 AM

With Children!

PrettyD_Vicious on April 21, 2008 at 12:28 AM

Obviously you are not married…

right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 12:26 AM

LOL …. indeed I’m not. Have a good night right2bright !

Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 12:28 AM

Do life forms “devolve”?

Ask the dandelion.

Or the blind cave fish.

Or the snake, which one had limbs.

profitsbeard on April 21, 2008 at 12:32 AM

You can have BOTH G-d and evolution; they’re not mutually exclusive. I have never seen why that is so hard for so many people to see.

btw – I am a professional geologist with lots of paleontological experience.
TexasJew on April 21, 2008 at 12:17 AM

How does it feel to be in a field that has almost no real knowledge of the subject that they have been pumping out fraudulent information about for the past 50 years? (i.e. there was no global flood)

Oh wait, you’re jewish….do you believe there was a global flood?

SaintOlaf on April 21, 2008 at 12:34 AM

My first thought is Wow, he is good, but then my second thought is: 48 hours reading comments constantly, He needs a girl friend to distract him or else his genes will never evolve to the next state of human.

Have a good night.

PrettyD_Vicious on April 21, 2008 at 12:25 AM

lol

married w/ children so, plenty of distractions…

TheCulturalist on April 21, 2008 at 12:35 AM

If evolutionists could realize that evolution is a theory rather than a fact, they wouldn’t be trying to hard to stamp out the possibility of ID catching on.

Look at the fossil record, back to the pre-Cambrian: simpler organisms preceded increasingly more variegated and complex ones, throughout geological time. That’s evolution: it’s a fact.

No, that’s a logical fallacy: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, to be precise.

Natural selection is the accepted theory of how it occurred. It is well-established, and the source of constant refinement and discovery.

Natural selection doesn’t address how evolution happened. It merely proposes that once mutations occurred, the mutations that are harmful would be eliminated and the mutations that are helpful would survive.

Of course, many put way too much hope in natural selection to explain evolution. All it takes to satisfy natural selection, as a professor once said, is each day to a) get lunch, b) avoid being something else’s lunch, and c) have more than a passing interest in sex.

Cockroaches do it quite effectively. In evolutionary terms, there is really no reason why humans would be considered more highly evolved than cockroaches. After all, natural selection cares only about the survival of the species, not the individual. If your reproductive rate is high enough, you can lose lots of individuals and still guarantee survival of the species.

. . . Evolution only addresses how how life could evolve from simpler to more complex forms. It does not address how life began. You want to argue that evolution is a proven fact, but there is no scientific evidence for how life began: just a presumption that it began without God, and a bunch of speculation about how that could have happened.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 6:57 PM

That’s right, we don’t know how life on Earth first began, though it is plausible that natural selection began to operate on the first self-reproducing, RNA-like molecules. There are hypotheses and speculation, but no answers yet. YET. Eventually we will discover the answer(s). That is the promise of science.

More a hope than a promise, I would imagine. And yet, knowing that you have no naturalistic means to explain the origin of life, and therefore can’t prove that life began without supernatural intervention, you’re still very sure that there must be a completely naturalistic explanation.

Which is why evolution has been aptly and correctly called a religion. You believe what you don’t know and can’t prove.

Short-circuiting that research by smugly claiming, “God did it” is not science; it’s theology, and bad theology at that: every time man invokes supernatural dieties to fill in the gaps in his knowledge of the world, eventually the dieties are made irrelevant when the gaps are filled.

MrLynn on April 21, 2008 at 12:16 AM

As I said, you don’t know it, you can’t prove it, but it couldn’t have been God!

theregoestheneighborhood on April 21, 2008 at 12:36 AM

Or the snake, which one had limbs.

profitsbeard on April 21, 2008 at 12:32 AM

You admit the snake once had limbs?

Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 12:36 AM

Gee, if something evolves, doesn’t it go through a series of changes (hence the name e v o l u t i o n)…or do you thing it just goes Pooof! and it is complete…
So now you have a dilemma, if you can’t measure evolution, how do you know it exists?
pretty tough to answer huh?

right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 12:06 AM

Evolution is not a unit of anything, obviously it can’t be measured. What is it your looking for here, greatest number of base-pair mutations? The races are too similar genetically to say, and we don’t have the complete DNA from our common ancestor as a baseline.

Evolution is incomplete as a theory — that doesn’t make it a bad theory, and it doesn’t make it wrong, and it doesn’t do anything at all for intelligent design.

Maybe I should be asking creationists, which race is the best designed?

RightOFLeft on April 21, 2008 at 12:46 AM

Or the snake, which one had limbs.

profitsbeard on April 21, 2008 at 12:32 AM

You admit the snake once had limbs?

Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 12:36 AM

Does this answer reinforce the Book of Genesis 3:14 and prove Creation. Without the science we have available today, how would we know that snake once had limbs?

PrettyD_Vicious on April 21, 2008 at 12:47 AM

Drat… it’s late and I got to go to work tomorrow. And what’s worse is that I’m almost out of cigarettes. Thank goodness I’m not out of beer.

If evolution were true, my body would have evolved to generate it’s own beer and cigarettes by now …… and I wouldn’t have to spend all of that money.

HA…. let’s see you argue with that one !!

Goodnight All.

Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 12:48 AM

Does this answer reinforce the Book of Genesis 3:14 and prove Creation. Without the science we have available today, how would we know that snake once had limbs?

PrettyD_Vicious on April 21, 2008 at 12:47 AM

I guess that depends on whether you believe snakes once had limbs or not. The Bible surely says they did.

Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 12:51 AM

Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 12:48 AM

Heh.

Well, I’m off to tuck in my wives and kids after I clean my gun, read some scripture and say my prayers.

See you all on the flip side.

labrat on April 21, 2008 at 1:03 AM

I think that Charles Darwin, like Kinsey, fashioned his theories to match his beliefs.

Johan Klaus on April 21, 2008 at 12:12 AM

If he did then he covered his tracks pretty well.

During these two years (March 1837 – January 1839) I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come by this time (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see the Old Testament, from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rain-bow as a sign, and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian.

Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

At present the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomedans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favour of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddhists of no God.

This argument would be a valid one, if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 1:54 AM

Exactly, Hitler was a huge fan, Marx worshipped Darwin, as was many communist leaders, Pol Pot, the Chinese…the survival of the fittest…if you can’t defend yourself, then you are the prey.

right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 12:09 AM

They were also huge fans of Thomas Edison, if not explicitly the implicitly.

Are you going to turn off your lights and leave them off?

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 1:57 AM

Americans were big FANS of Wernher von Braun, basically the father of America’s space program, from first American satellite to American manned landings on the moon, who had been a member of the German Nazi party.

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 2:04 AM

It allows you to deny God and still explain how we got here.

Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 12:15 AM

Explain how God got here.

And please don’t say, “He was always here” as that is vacuous.

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 2:07 AM

If evolutionists could realize that evolution is a theory rather than a fact, they wouldn’t be trying to hard to stamp out the possibility of ID catching on.

I think that most people who believe in evolution believe in it as a theory, a damn good one, not as absolute fact.

The opposition to so called “ID” is not to it’s “catching on”, but rather that it is creationism trying to pass itself off as science. Al Gore has “raped” science enough, a gang bang is not needed.

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 2:14 AM

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 1:54 AM

From what I have read, I think that he had a preconcieved notion. I also think that he would try to hide it. Just my opinion.

Johan Klaus on April 21, 2008 at 2:18 AM

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 2:14 AM

It is being taught in public school as a fact.

Johan Klaus on April 21, 2008 at 2:21 AM

It is being taught in public school as a fact.

Johan Klaus on April 21, 2008 at 2:21 AM

I think that much/most of it should be taught as a theory, like say planet formation, but I don’t think that ID should be taught, unless it is in a religious school.

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 2:31 AM

but I don’t think that ID should be taught, unless it is in a religious school.

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 2:31 AM

So public schools are allowed to teach the religious doctrine of evolution/secular humanism in your opinion?

Doesn’t that make public schools religious schools then?

A sick,racist, satanic religion yes, but religious nonetheless.

SaintOlaf on April 21, 2008 at 2:35 AM

BTW, I also think that Al Gore’s extreme stuff should not even be mentioned at all, certainly not as fact nor in his version, even as theory.

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 2:36 AM

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 2:07 AM

Where did energy come from?

Johan Klaus on April 21, 2008 at 2:39 AM

So public schools are allowed to teach the religious doctrine of evolution/secular humanism in your opinion?

SaintOlaf on April 21, 2008 at 2:35 AM

Evolution is not a religious doctrine. You can say it is for the rest of your life and it will still not be one.

Now as to secular humanism, we may not be so far apart there, it all depends on what that means.

If it means this –

Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance focusing on the way human beings can lead good and happy lives.

then I don’t know why it shouldn’t receive some class time.

On the other hand, if it means some extreme left wing (or extreme right wing) professor trying to push his goof-ball ideas on a captive audience, then I would be with you.

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 2:45 AM

Where did energy come from?

Johan Klaus on April 21, 2008 at 2:39 AM

Well I don’t think it came from either evolution of species nor from a God.

If I could answer that question fully then there would be a God after all and I would be Him.

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 2:51 AM

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 2:51 AM

So was energy created?

Johan Klaus on April 21, 2008 at 3:21 AM

Another question i have never seen raised: Why do we call mutation “evolution”? “Origin of species” theory does not explain why multiple cell organisms are “better”, “evolved” compared to single cell organisms. Why Mythosis is “better” than Myosis?

It is a judgemental HUMAN function to call anything evolved or devolved, better or worse, good or bad. If you say adjusting to enviroment is the key to this definition, the reality proves single cell organisms are much better adapted and have better survivability rate.

There is mutation, no doubt, and to deny mutation is like to deny regular chemical reaction. But to say some mutations are better than others / aka Evolution, is a Human, moral and theist concept. Just like to say the initial expansion of the universe is a good thing / aka the Creation.

Aristotle on April 21, 2008 at 5:26 AM

Explain how God got here.

And please don’t say, “He was always here” as that is vacuous.

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 2:07 AM

I can’t, nobody can. But He is.

Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 6:40 AM

Antibiotics that kill 99% of bacteria eventually promote the survival and the expansion of the 1% that resist them, created superbacteria that require another set of antibiotics to cure, and so on.

A tougher bacterium does not a three-toed sloth make. Or even a different species of bacterium.

Squiggy on April 21, 2008 at 6:50 AM

A tougher bacterium does not a three-toed sloth make. Or even a different species of bacterium.

Squiggy on April 21, 2008 at 6:50 AM

Bullseye!

labrat on April 21, 2008 at 6:57 AM

You can have BOTH G-d and evolution; they’re not mutually exclusive. I have never seen why that is so hard for so many people to see.

TexasJew on April 21, 2008 at 12:17 AM

This has already been answered – The Bible teaches death originated with man’s sin. Evolution teaches death preceded man. They are incompatible.

fossten on April 21, 2008 at 6:59 AM

so… agree to disagree..

one thing for sure,

Obama would suck as president..

DaveC on April 21, 2008 at 7:53 AM

In your opinion, were these “first self-reproducing RNA-like molecules” alive….. or just machines?

Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 12:23 AM

Good question! You’re thinking like a scientist, unlike some of the blinkered theists on this thread.

What defines ‘life’? The ability to replicate, surely. The ability to utilize energy from its environment, perhaps in service of replication. Beyond that?

Is a virus alive? It’s just a strand of DNA and a protein sheath. Viruses are very simple, but not precursors of cells; they need to invade cells to replicate, so are highly-adapted parasites. However, the precursors of cells might have been something like viruses.

The point is, we don’t know yet. But we’ll find out, unless the theists ofone stripe or another stamp out science and plunge us into a new Dark Age.

MrLynn on April 21, 2008 at 8:21 AM

unless the theists ofone stripe or another stamp out science and plunge us into a new Dark Age.

MrLynn on April 21, 2008 at 8:21 AM

How humorous. You first try to establish yourself as a scientific thinker, and then end your post with emotive, flawed comments.

Congratulations, you’ve managed to squeeze ad hominem, judgmental language, generalization, and appeal to consequences and fear into your “argument.”

Do you intend on constructing a real argument, or are you going to continue emoting?

fossten on April 21, 2008 at 8:33 AM

Which is why evolution has been aptly and correctly called a religion. You believe what you don’t know and can’t prove.

theregoestheneighborhood on April 21, 2008 at 12:36 AM

***WINNER***

fossten on April 21, 2008 at 8:47 AM

As I said, you don’t know it, you can’t prove it, but it couldn’t have been God!

theregoestheneighborhood on April 21, 2008 at 12:36 AM

MrLynn on April 21, 2008 at 8:51 AM

I think HA is getting tired of this thread; it just ate a rather long response to Mr. Neighborhood.

Oh well. Just this, then:

As I said, you don’t know it, you can’t prove it, but it couldn’t have been God!

theregoestheneighborhood on April 21, 2008 at 12:36 AM

Of course we don’t know; that’s what motivates scientists. Sure it could have been God. But science proceeds on the assumption that ‘naturalistic’ explanation is possible. If we ever get to the point that nothing will suffice but ‘divine’ intervention, then that will be the end of the enterprise.

And fossten, that isn’t emotional, nor ad hominem. There are theists in places like Iran who would just as soon stop scientific progress in its tracks (except for stealing weapons technology from the West), and some of the theists on this thread have similar know-nothing attitudes. That’s the whole raison d’etre of the God of the Gaps. Fill in the gaps with divinity, and we don’t need to seek answers any more. It’s the end of wonder, and that’s the end of science.

MrLynn on April 21, 2008 at 9:01 AM

They were also huge fans of Thomas Edison, if not explicitly the implicitly.

Are you going to turn off your lights and leave them off?
- MB4

Was Edison a philosopher, eugenicist, or evolutionary biologist? Did Edison’s work lead to the Nazi’s justification of genocide? No??? Well then your point is flat on it’s face.

MechEng5by5 on April 21, 2008 at 9:08 AM

and can anybody here tell me if they have read every post?

PrettyD_Vicious on April 21, 2008 at 12:02 AM

I am working on it. I’m up to page 14 now. I intend to read every post, but it’s going to take some time. Like everyone else, I have a life to live outside of HotAir and can’t be on here 24×7. But I do intend to read every comment, because I think this is quite possibly the most important thread ever posted on HotAir.

Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 9:11 AM

Maybe I should be asking creationists, which race is the best designed?

RightOFLeft on April 21, 2008 at 12:46 AM

Yes, ask us, all men are created equal in God’s eyes…that’s the crux of the bible. That is why we reach out to the downtrodden and feed them everynight, give comfort to those that are abused…and that is why the atheists, generally as pointed out by many of the atheists on this thread, don’t.

right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 9:30 AM

They were also huge fans of Thomas Edison, if not explicitly the implicitly.

Are you going to turn off your lights and leave them off?

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 1:57 AM

When it gets late, you get more stupid…Darwin’s theory’s, as pointed out in the excellent essay a couple of pages ago, was a leader of a sinsister social movement…Edison was not. I could go on, but your retort is so foolish it is not worth it…

right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 9:32 AM

Darwin’s theory’s, as pointed out in the excellent essay a couple of pages ago, was a leader of a sinsister social movement

right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 9:32 AM

Hitler, and the others, misused much of what they found in science. Still, scientists shouldn’t condition the outcomes of their research to produce socially palatable answers.

dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 9:43 AM

This has already been answered – The Bible teaches death originated with man’s sin. Evolution teaches death preceded man. They are incompatible.

fossten on April 21, 2008 at 6:59 AM

very good.
So many people here pontificating about God but doesn’t give him a chance to speak.
Science begins with God.
I won’t try to explain God’s creation because of “science” falsely so called.

maynila on April 21, 2008 at 9:59 AM

Science begins with God.
I won’t try to explain God’s creation because of “science” falsely so called.

maynila on April 21, 2008 at 9:59 AM

It may end with God, but it probably begins with our fall from God.

dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 10:08 AM

Any movie that apes the style of Micheal Moore is an utter waste of time. If you condemn him, then you should also condemn this waste of film. If not you are, quite simply, a hypocrite.

Krydor on April 21, 2008 at 10:16 AM

This has already been answered – The Bible teaches death originated with man’s sin. Evolution teaches death preceded man. They are incompatible.

fossten on April 21, 2008 at 6:59 AM

Catholic teaching differs from you on this point. They represent a very big percentage of the world’s Christians.

There are passages where the Bible is in contradiction with science and even in contradiction with itself.

dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 10:17 AM

There are theists in places like Iran who would just as soon stop scientific progress in its tracks (except for stealing weapons technology from the West), and some of the theists on this thread have similar know-nothing attitudes. That’s the whole raison d’etre of the God of the Gaps. Fill in the gaps with divinity, and we don’t need to seek answers any more. It’s the end of wonder, and that’s the end of science.

MrLynn on April 21, 2008 at 9:01 AM

We’re not talking about Iran. We’re talking about America. You have no basis whereby to make this claim. You’ve just backpedaled and moved the goalposts. Nice try. Moreover, one of the evo scientists in the movie admitted that they want to use evolution to squash religion. Tu quoque much?

And you just demonstrated that you know nothing about Creation science. The fact is that being able to assume God did something does not in any way diminish or eliminate the need or desire for science – that is a woefully pitiful stereotype coming from someone who thinks they are being scientific.

In fact, believing God did something enhances science because it opens up a completely heretofore restricted area that evo scientists label as taboo. If you knew anything about Creation science or ID you would know that it is quite robust.

fossten on April 21, 2008 at 10:20 AM

There are passages where the Bible is in contradiction with science and even in contradiction with itself.

dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 10:17 AM

Name one.

fossten on April 21, 2008 at 10:21 AM

Maybe I should be asking creationists, which race is the best designed?

RightOFLeft on April 21, 2008 at 12:46 AM

The human race.

fossten on April 21, 2008 at 10:23 AM

and can anybody here tell me if they have read every post?

PrettyD_Vicious on April 21, 2008 at 12:02 AM

Um… I have. Does that make me sick? lol
Wait! I did skip a handfull of Olaf’s posts. But just the most recent few.

shibumiglass on April 21, 2008 at 10:28 AM

Catholic teaching differs from you on this point. They represent a very big percentage of the world’s Christians.

dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 10:17 AM

This is a flawed statement. First of all, I stated what the Bible says and never mentioned Christianity or Catholicism in my post.

Are you saying that Catholic teaching states that sin did not originate with man? If you are, then according to you Catholic teaching differs from the Bible. In general, then, you would be correct, but NOT on this particular point.

You have a lot to learn about Catholicism and Christianity.

fossten on April 21, 2008 at 10:30 AM

and can anybody here tell me if they have read every post?

PrettyD_Vicious on April 21, 2008 at 12:02 AM

Read every single one. Yeah, it’s one of my favorite subjects. Sue me. ;)

fossten on April 21, 2008 at 10:30 AM

Maybe I should be asking creationists, which race is the best designed?

RightOFLeft on April 21, 2008 at 12:46 AM

The human race.

fossten on April 21, 2008 at 10:23 AM

Yes, we are all one race.

Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 10:43 AM

And you just demonstrated that you know nothing about Creation science. The fact is that being able to assume God did something does not in any way diminish or eliminate the need or desire for science – that is a woefully pitiful stereotype coming from someone who thinks they are being scientific.

In fact, believing God did something enhances science because it opens up a completely heretofore restricted area that evo scientists label as taboo. If you knew anything about Creation science or ID you would know that it is quite robust.

fossten on April 21, 2008 at 10:20 AM

‘Creation science’ is an oxymoron. There ain’t no such animal.

MrLynn on April 21, 2008 at 10:44 AM

The most annoying thing about little dogs is the constant pointless YAP YAP YAPPING!

ronsfi on April 21, 2008 at 10:45 AM

Good question! You’re thinking like a scientist, unlike some of the blinkered theists on this thread.

MrLynn on April 21, 2008 at 8:21 AM

I’m sure I’ll be back to the “blinkered theists” status once you understand why I ask the question. By the way, do you realize how condescending, inaccurate and disingenuous your implication is? You imply with your statement that a person cannot believe in God and think like a scientist….. this in spite of the long list of preeminent Christian scientist that have heavily contributed to our current knowledge base. Condescension is one of the main tools of evolutionist and of all that enjoy deceiving others. But it won’t work here, it especially won’t work on me, because I have no substantial ego to bruise or flatter.

What defines ‘life’? The ability to replicate, surely. The ability to utilize energy from its environment, perhaps in service of replication. Beyond that?

Is a virus alive? It’s just a strand of DNA and a protein sheath. Viruses are very simple, but not precursors of cells; they need to invade cells to replicate, so are highly-adapted parasites. However, the precursors of cells might have been something like viruses.

The point is, we don’t know yet. But we’ll find out, unless the theists ofone stripe or another stamp out science and plunge us into a new Dark Age.

MrLynn on April 21, 2008 at 8:21 AM

The reason I ask the question is because one of my favorite arguments against evolution is that ….. any five year old knows a car can’t build itself.

Ohh…. but Oh … whenever that statement is made the evolutionist inevitably SCREECH

….. YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND EVOULTION, THAT’S NOT HOW EVOLUTION WORKS !!!!!!

But you seem to be telling us that’s exactly how evolution works and of course it is, it could work no other way. Evolution by definition has no intelligence, thus the first life, if evolution is true, indeed assembled itself. I know the mud puddle and lighting are involved as well in the ‘theory,” but that’s just a pipe dream…. consider this.

Man has the technology today to make machines that would replicate themselves. I’m sure there is a combination of robotic arms, conveyor belts and software that could make that happen. But think of the complexity.

The raw materials, you might be able to assemble with little effort…. iron and nickel to make steel, crude oil to make plastics and tree sap to make rubber. Sand to make silicon and so on. But these are just the raw products and nature would be hard pressed in simply placeing all the raw materials in one location, in the mud puddle … but even if it did, the process to build replicating machines has hardly begun.

Next the raw materials must be processed in a thousand different ways. Metal has to be melted, shaped and precisely machined as well as other parts made from other materials. Sand must be melted and silicon made, from this resister, and integrated circuits must be made, you will need capacitors, switches and inductors as well…. highly technical, highly precise.

After all the parts are made and machined and assembled…. we still need software….. no small task to write software for a machine to replicate itself…. I assure you.

It is highly doubtful, nature alone, could provide for phase one of this undertaking…. which is the mere assembly of the raw materials. The rest of the project is utterly impossible for nature alone to accomplish.

So you see, if your “self-reproducing RNA-like molecules” were machines… that’s impossible. And if they were alive…. that’s also impossible, because life is far more complex than mere machines.

Man can build machines, but all the knowledge of the ages has not allowed us to assemble that which is dead into something alive.

If life was so simple that it could happen by accident, man would have discovered the secret long ago.

Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 10:49 AM

I know I’m going to sound like SaintOlaf here, but “racism” truly is a tool of Satan…he uses it to divide people and incite disharmony, hatred, and even bloodshed. That is not of God. God wants us to live in harmony, unity, and love.

…and remember that the speech Obama gave in response to the Rev. Wright issue focused on what?….racism. Not ending it, but using it in an attempt to win the Presidency. He tries to stir up every feeling of race conflict, class conflict, gender conflict, age conflict, etc. He is trying to start a revolution. I’ve pointed that out before both here on HotAir and on my personal blog.

Just don’t be deceived into thinking that Hillary and McCain are any better…they just disguise it better. All three of them are, in my opinion, socialists who want to lower, not raise, the influence of this country in the world. I pray for you all to have eyes to see.

Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 10:52 AM

The most annoying thing about little dogs is the constant pointless YAP YAP YAPPING!

ronsfi on April 21, 2008 at 10:45 AM

Who let the dogs out?

So the Philistine said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods.
1 Samuel 17:43 (New King James Version)

Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 10:59 AM

jp, just listened to it. I think RCSproul said some things that were correct, most importantly that this not a scientific issue, rather a philosphic one. I also agree with him that scientists do not want ID tought in science classroom because it breaks their philosophic bent toward naturalism.

This is not about science, rather it is about how science *is done*. If ID is ‘expelled’ from scientific discourse, it is because it breaks the rules of naturalism, which is at the foundation of our scienfic method. And this is where I think scientists differ with Sproul and Stein. We cannot stop whenever we are stumped with a scientific problem, throw up our hands and say ‘that does it, a transcendent designer must be responsible’. That can be taught in philosophy, in theology, in religious classes – and that is worth considering. But it has no room in science class. ID, in my view is a dead end. Once a designer has been invoked the road is closed for further scientific investigation. It explains nothing from a scientific standpoint.

I’m pretty sure that Sproul would point out that the Scientific Method was not the product of Scientific Naturalism, and actually a biblical Christian worldview that Scientific Naturalism can’t account for yet many borrow from the christian worldview anyway. and would point to David Hume and the “problem of induction” that naturalist have, to help make their case…plus the world view held by Bacon? who discovered the scientific method.

that said, ID merely points out through Science questions that arise from the atheist/darwinian science that ’something came from nothing”‘, etc. many of them would accept as a possibility what Stein gets Dawkins to admit, that Aliens could’ve been our designer instead of continuing to allow them to claim anti-science(something came from nothing, ignoring law of inertia, etc.)

jp on April 21, 2008 at 10:59 AM

The fact is that being able to assume God did something does not in any way diminish or eliminate the need or desire for science – that is a woefully pitiful stereotype

THANK YOU!

RightOfLeft has been driving me batty with that stance.
Any Christians out there, can you quote what Adam and Eve were told in the garden, something about ‘naming’ or ‘knowing’ everything in creation to glorify God.
ID’ers and creationists in science are not saying we should throw up our hands and stop exploring and learning. I just really don’t know where this idea comes from.

shibumiglass on April 21, 2008 at 11:06 AM

I like that movie Ben Stein was in where he jumps a shark. Oh wait this is that movie.

LevStrauss on April 21, 2008 at 11:07 AM

Just don’t be deceived into thinking that Hillary and McCain are any better…they just disguise it better. All three of them are, in my opinion, socialists who want to lower, not raise, the influence of this country in the world. I pray for you all to have eyes to see.

Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 10:52 AM

Good point, but I will take it a step further and posit that Obama doesn’t even disguise it well, as evidenced by his recent statements. He is just provided with extra cover by the MSM based on PC and the color of his skin. In other words, if a white man says it, it’s racist – but if a black man says it, it’s true.

fossten on April 21, 2008 at 11:10 AM

Any Christians out there, can you quote what Adam and Eve were told in the garden, something about ‘naming’ or ‘knowing’ everything in creation to glorify God.

shibumiglass on April 21, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.
Genesis 2:19-20 (New King James Version)

Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 11:11 AM

Any Christians out there, can you quote what Adam and Eve were told in the garden, something about ‘naming’ or ‘knowing’ everything in creation to glorify God.
ID’ers and creationists in science are not saying we should throw up our hands and stop exploring and learning. I just really don’t know where this idea comes from.

shibumiglass on April 21, 2008 at 11:06 AM

how’s this, Paul commanded: “Test Everything and hold fast to that which is good!” 1 Thes. 5:21

Christians have the presupposition that the world/universe is uniform and therefore science is possible. That is why science as we know it today was launched out of the reformation of the church in the 16th century. Atheism has chance/randomness as a foundation/belief and therefore science is impossible. Atheism uses borrowed capital from the Christian worldview to account for all that it tries to do. So please, don’t act like Christians have no idea what science is

jp on April 21, 2008 at 11:12 AM

I like that movie Ben Stein was in where he jumps a shark. Oh wait this is that movie.

LevStrauss on April 21, 2008 at 11:07 AM

Which you haven’t seen. Tu quoque…

fossten on April 21, 2008 at 11:13 AM

also see Psalm 19

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.

3 There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard. [a]

4 Their voice [b] goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,

5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.

6 It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is hidden from its heat.

7 The law of the LORD is perfect,
reviving the soul.
The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy,
making wise the simple.

8 The precepts of the LORD are right,
giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the LORD are radiant,
giving light to the eyes.

9 The fear of the LORD is pure,
enduring forever.
The ordinances of the LORD are sure
and altogether righteous.

10 They are more precious than gold,
than much pure gold;
they are sweeter than honey,
than honey from the comb.

11 By them is your servant warned;
in keeping them there is great reward.

12 Who can discern his errors?
Forgive my hidden faults.

13 Keep your servant also from willful sins;
may they not rule over me.
Then will I be blameless,
innocent of great transgression.

14 May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be pleasing in your sight,
O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.

jp on April 21, 2008 at 11:15 AM

‘Creation science’ is an oxymoron. There ain’t no such animal.

MrLynn on April 21, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Says you…but your credibility isn’t shining very brightly right now.

fossten on April 21, 2008 at 11:15 AM

Living within the concept that the world was created by a reasonable God, scientists could move with confidence, expecting to find out about the world by observation and experimentation. This was their epistemological base–the philosophical foundation with which they were sure they could know….Since the world had been created by a reasonable God, they were not surprised to find a correlation between themselves as observers and the thing observed….Without this foundation, Western modern science would not have been born.

–Francis Schaeffer

jp on April 21, 2008 at 11:17 AM

Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 11:11 AM
jp on April 21, 2008 at 11:12 AM

Thanks, both of you.

So please, don’t act like Christians have no idea what science is

jp on April 21, 2008 at 11:12 AM

Exactly!
RightOFLeft, please stop saying ID and creationism is a scientific dead-end. “Test everything”.
RedPill – do i remember Morpheus saying ‘question everything’, or do I just need more coffee and some food?

shibumiglass on April 21, 2008 at 11:20 AM

This is a flawed statement. First of all, I stated what the Bible says and never mentioned Christianity or Catholicism in my post.

Are you saying that Catholic teaching states that sin did not originate with man? If you are, then according to you Catholic teaching differs from the Bible. In general, then, you would be correct, but NOT on this particular point.

You have a lot to learn about Catholicism and Christianity.

fossten on April 21, 2008 at 10:30 AM

Sure. I have much to learn. It would be vanity for one to look at Christianity and think they knew everything.

Catholics believe that sin and death originated with Adam and Eve and that their sin became the sin of all their descendants. We all are born with an original sin that is a depravation of the original holiness and justice that Adam had before the fall. Christ died on the cross to redeem mankind from sin and make possible a way for man to return to the father.

The Catholic church professes that the Bible is the word of God. It also teaches that theories about an old earth and common descent are likely valid science, but not incompatible with a belief that we are each individually God’s creation. Pope Benedict has recently said that evolutionary theory implies questions that cannot be answered within the realm of science.

My point was that, for Catholics, science being in conflict with a literal reading of the Bible does not, ipso facto, mean that science must be wrong.

dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 11:24 AM

7 The law of the LORD is perfect,
reviving the soul.

For some reason (lack of food?) I read this as:
The law of the creation is perfect,
*revealing* the soul.

I got chills.

shibumiglass on April 21, 2008 at 11:27 AM

dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 11:24 AM

Well then you have a problem. Because if Catholics believe that sin and death originated with Adam and Eve, they also agree with the Bible. The problem is that evolution does not. Therefore, with regard to this particular point, you were wrong in the first place. Catholics, the Bible, Christians, etc. disagree with evolution on the point of where death began. Furthermore, evolution is not science. It is an interpretation of science. In fact, evolution has been shown in this thread to be a mere belief system that gleans some of its support evidence from science, but some of its beliefs are NOT supported by ANY science.

fossten on April 21, 2008 at 11:39 AM

God very well may have created the planet, but none of these silly religions. I don’t hate God so I won’t attribute these fables written by people who thought the world was flat to God.

LevStrauss on April 21, 2008 at 11:43 AM

Wait! I did skip a handfull of Olaf’s posts. But just the most recent few.

shibumiglass on April 21, 2008 at 10:28 AM

I agree, Redundant.

PrettyD_Vicious on April 21, 2008 at 11:48 AM

Comment pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24


You must be logged in to post a comment.