Movie Review: Expelled
posted at 3:00 pm on April 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 … 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 »
No disagreement here. Religion was something even Jesus preached against in the Gospels.
fossten on April 21, 2008 at 11:49 AM
The Bible says in Acts 17:26 that God has “made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.”
I do know this, all nations are of one blood, and we are not superior to the blacks, or the Orientals, or any other color, just because we may be white. Sorry bout that Darwin. We are all the same, and I am very much against racism!
“Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?” Malachi 2:10
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 11:49 AM
That’s the point, they didn’t misuse Darwin’s theory, they applied them. See even you can’t believe that you have been duped, you try to say misuse, when they were applied, it hurts, but it is the truth. Survival of the fittest, certain races are more evolved then others, the weak must die, those are evolutions theory’s.
Social Darwinism drove Marx, and later the Communists (all of the ism’s), that is why it was created, not to explain animal behavior, but to justify unjust human behavior…and by the likes of the posts in the past couple of days it seems to have been embraced by many.
Bonus points if you give us the whole title of Darwin’s book…with that you will see the theory’s that evolutionists have bought into.
right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 11:49 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pur_si_muove!
ronsfi on April 21, 2008 at 11:55 AM
The Three Stooges.
ronsfi on April 21, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Thank you for saying that. I wish more people felt that way. Religion is simply an attempt to politicise spirituality.
And neodarwinism is simply an attempt to politicise science.
shibumiglass on April 21, 2008 at 12:03 PM
They have lied to you. The Science textbooks have some good science in them, but they are filled with lies about the evolution THEORY. I don’t even blame all of you for thinking evolution is true because you have been lied to for so long from people you trust.
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 12:04 PM
No one fossil has ever been found showing part fin part feet.
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Yes, humans began devolving about eight millennia ago and the proof is strewn this thread.
Speakup on April 21, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Strewn thoughout
Speakup on April 21, 2008 at 12:06 PM
What’s funny is that you don’t even understand why Ed said, “E pur si muove, for the 21st century.”
The point is about the suppression of free speech and true science.
Last time it was perpetuated by ungodly people in the church. Now it is being perpetuated by ungodly atheists. In both cases it is wrong and not Biblical.
Bible-believing men wrote the first amendment and many have given their lives defending it and the rest of our Constitution.
Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I think alot of you have to come to terms with the fact that either the universe was designed, or it came about by random chance. These are the only options.
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Wrong!
Wrong again!
Wrong once more!!
right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Wrong once more!! was supposed to be this. Darn!
right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 12:18 PM
The Catholic position wouldn’t be that no organisms died before Adam. In this case the Church would be at odds with your interpretation of the Bible. The Church accepts much of evolutionary biology.
dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Make that four stooges.
ronsfi on April 21, 2008 at 12:20 PM
I think it was like the discovery of Teflon…God was creating something else, and he left it on the heat too long (six days or yom was just too long), and Darn! Look what he created…so he took a day off, and then ran with it. Sent his marketing manager down when things were going bad, the campaign died, he resurrected the campaign and here we are…
right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 12:23 PM
I have to run. Will be back later, but here’s a simple way to provide evidence for God.
The Bible tells us in Romans 2:15, that God’s law is written in every one of our hearts. It says, “Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness.”
That means God’s is law written in our hearts and our conscience bears witness to this by indicating to us what’s right and wrong.
Very touching to see this humble man with an open mind and receptive heart find the glory that is God. Great biblical way to talk to someone about why we need Jesus Christ!
Ray Comfort shares gospel with a young man at Seal Beach, California.
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Friend of mine just sent me THIS.
Might be good for another posting push…
TheCulturalist on April 21, 2008 at 12:30 PM
The science of evolutionary biology isn’t socially or morally prescriptive. It describes how organisms change over time, not how you should treat your neighbor. Even without Darwin, we’ve long known that nature is cruel.
dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 12:31 PM
And by “the church,” do you mean the entire body of catholics in the entire world? Members only, or do you include casual attendees or non-practicing Catholics? Do you include Catholics who have converted to, say, Evangelical Christianity? Are you speaking of only those currently alive, or do you get in your wayback machine and include all past deceased Catholics in this data? How would you be able to speak for the individual views of millions of people? Or do you mean a certain percentage of them? What percentage would that be?
Or do you mean “The Church” as in the “official position of the Orthodox leaders of the Vatican?” Please link this so that I can examine it.
By the way, my “interpretation” of the Bible on this particular issue consists of reading it and taking its exact words at face value instead of trying to spin them into some meaning that fits my preconceptions. There are many passages in scripture that clearly state that sin caused death, and sin originated with Adam and Eve. You cannot make a good case otherwise, but I invite you to try.
fossten on April 21, 2008 at 12:32 PM
There are lots of good quotes from The Matrix. Search on the word “question” and the word “real”.
I realize you are looking for a “question everything” quote, but there is one question that is most important…
Deuteronomy 4:29
But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul.
Proverbs 8:17
I love those who love me, And those who seek me diligently will find me.
Jeremiah 29:13
And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.
Matthew 7:7-8
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
Luke 11:9-10
So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
Acts 17:27
so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Wow. Small world. I too am an admirer of Ray’s.
fossten on April 21, 2008 at 12:33 PM
I’ve quoted this before, but it bears repeating for ronsfi…
And, to make sure we get the message, God repeats Himself:
Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 12:46 PM
It certainly does NOT describe how organisms change over time. Evolutions’ ONLY purpose is socially/morally prescriptive and the evolutionist themselves have told us as much…. in their unguarded moments.
Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Here are a couple that seem difficult to reconcile.
Does the Bible say that camel’s don’t have split hooves, that rabbit’s chew their cud, or that bats are birds? What were the last words of Jesus? What did Judas do with the 30 pieces of silver? How did Judas die?
dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 12:53 PM
You still don’t get it, evolution was designed to justify man’s intolerance as being “natural selection”. It isn’t about how you treat your neighbor, sheesh, this is getting really irritating.
Once out in the open, Darwin’s theory’s became the blueprint for the most oppressive regimes in the world…it gave them a reason that was “scientific”, and still do. How many times have you heard “eat or be eaten”, “survival of the fittest”, those are part of his theory’s, not a by-product, but the actual theory that you prescribe to.
Once again, read the entire title of Darwin’s book and you will see what he was developing(The Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life) notice anything unusual about the title? Just because some scientist now have decided that it is embarrassing, they manipulate it (by ignoring his most basic facts) to fit “their view” of the world. That is why evolution is a faith based product, it’s basic premise, that evolution happens can’t or won’t be measured on humans.
Here is a question…in evolution, it is a process, what good is 1/2 of a wing to a lizard?
I will leave you with this quote;
right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Tiresome, the Hebrews have words for all of that you have stated. In the translation they chose the most ordinary words to describe what you have stated. If it was a biology book they would have been more definite. The translaters never imagined someone so petty would try something so foolish as to undermine the bible with something so easily researched. Every study bible, in the footnotes, goes over these few things in detail, excruciating detail because of pundits like you. You should try googling a website that has better arguments then those. Try another argument that has some intellect behind it, you are embarrassing yourself.
*
BTW, the saving grace of Jesus Christ is not dependent on a bat or a bird…FYI.
right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Righ2Bright,
You asked dedalus to name some stuff in the bible that contradicted science. He did, he wins.
Krydor on April 21, 2008 at 1:13 PM
I’m going to try and answer all of these without referencing the scriptures…. so if I don’t get it verbatim, your going to have to cut me some slack.
Camels DO have split hooves but don’t chew the cud… unclean. Rabbits have paws and chew the cud (I think) which makes the “clean - to eat”. Bats were put generally in the category of birds, bat were specifically stated as unclean.
Jesus last words… loosely quoted were, Father into your hands I commend my spirit.
Judas bought land, fell off a ridge and killed himself.
Of course the clean / unclean…. as to what could be eaten was changed in the New Testament.
Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 1:13 PM
ID is as Scientific as Astrology.
ronsfi on April 21, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Maxx,
Rabbits chew cud? Really?
Jesus’ last words were “Father, why hast thou forsaken me?”
Judas hung himself.
Krydor on April 21, 2008 at 1:17 PM
What, read my post putz…looks like I win. Here’s a hint, look at the word parac regarding hoofs…now any others?…looks like I win.
Everything he stated has been defined for hundreds of years, no amount of Googling anti-Christian websites will uncover anything new.
The only reason why those websites exist, is because gullible people like you do not have the intellect or energy to do proper research…so they just take whatever was fed to them.
Now here is my question…where did I ask dedalus to find “stuff”?
right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Your definition of “a couple” needs work.
But I’ll indulge you.
1. Camels and rabbits: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp
2. Bats: http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html
3. The last words of Jesus: I believe the last words recorded by Jesus in the Bible were spoken to Ananias when He told him to prepare to receive Saul of Tarsus in Acts chapter 9. But then again, since Jesus is God, He spoke in Revelation to John, so…
4. Judas cast the silver at the feet of the Pharisees, but later used them to buy a field. This is not a contradiction because it is possible that he returned for the money, or that he did not cast all of it at their feet.
5. There is no clear description of Judas’ death. He did hang himself, but the Bible does not say that he died as a result. Nor does the part about him bursting asunder in the midst indicate that he wasn’t already dead. It’s possible that either he didn’t die when he hanged himself, or that he hung there a while and either the rope snapped or his body rotted, causing him to fall and burst asunder.
fossten on April 21, 2008 at 1:24 PM
That post was so very excellent. Thank you!
shibumiglass on April 21, 2008 at 1:24 PM
OOPS, I guess since two of us have answered his query, YOU’RE the one who loses.
fossten on April 21, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Right2Bright,
Good, so rabbits chew their cud, bats are birds, from a really high place, one can see all the world and so forth. The translation errors in your book are not my problem. They would be, in fact, yours. As you have already admitted that these are errors, then just admit you are incorrect.
Krydor on April 21, 2008 at 1:31 PM
What Church?
No True Church accepts the anti Biblical,anti scientific religion of evolution.
Maybe some false churches do.
SaintOlaf on April 21, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Krydor on April 21, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Hey…. that’s what I get for not peeking.
Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Sir, YOU are the one who is incorrect. And since you haven’t even bothered to read the link I posted, you are intellectually lazy as well. You don’t even know who to address. For your information, dedalus was answering my request to post contradictions. R2B never asked him that.
You might want to check your facts before you post so haphazardly.
fossten on April 21, 2008 at 1:35 PM
refection, rumination…gerah
another hint for you little bible experts.
Jesus’s last words are unknown…several accounts have different words. Much like someone coming up to a conversation, then leaving…each would have a different memory of what was said, that’s what makes the bible so accurate. If everything was perfect, and in place, then everyone would have the same exact position of view, something that is impossible. Nice try, what website did you gleen these immature arguments from?
His prophecy was upheld, with the taking of the “vinegar”, the cry out by man, etc.
Generally it is these:”Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!”
What has this to do with evolution?
right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Nothing, it was just a lame and futile attempt by dedalus to point out supposed contradictions in the Bible.
By the way, you might want to read Acts Chapter 9. Jesus is specifically mentioned there, where He speaks to Ananias. It can be argued that His last words haven’t even been spoken yet, as He has yet to judge the world.
fossten on April 21, 2008 at 1:41 PM
The Catholic Church. Many do not consider it to be a false church.
dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 1:41 PM
So you haven’t seen my response to your statement, or are you just too stumped to answer?
fossten on April 21, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Dedalus, I’m referring to my response to your claim about the Catholic church. Please scroll up.
fossten on April 21, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Hey stupid, it is not my place to educate you. Rabbits have refection, look at the hebrew word for chewing their cud and tell me who is wrong…don’t bother me with stupid foolish questions, when they are so easily answered. They aren’t errors, do you know anything, anything at all about translating from one language to another, let alone from an ancient dead language? Obviously not.
Now what does this have to do with evolution?
right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 1:43 PM
It was in response to your question. What is at issue is whether science must be in accord with a literal interpretation of the Bible.
dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Well, are you satisfied now? Because I can do this all day.
fossten on April 21, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Will do. Sometimes real world issues interfere with my ability to keep up with comments.
dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 1:46 PM
So next time you ask a question, use the literal interpretation…instead of using some Google site. What site are you getting your little foolish questions from? it must not be for the very bright…
Now, answer my question, seeing as you are a evolutionist…what human race is superior to the others?
right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 1:49 PM
True… but that was not the plain meaning of the question. When we start splitting hairs and not giving a straight answer, we become like them.
Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 1:58 PM
I’m actually bringing up questions in response to fossten that I’ve heard Christian Apologists debate with students who read the Bible as literature. Some conversations along these lines predate Google, the Internet, or personal computers. If I could have used Google in the 1970’s, I would have.
Which race is superior? Is there a single sense in which someone is genetically superior–height, strength, vision, resistance to disease, longevity? If the study of genetics were to give us statistical answers to some of these questions it wouldn’t make genetics less of a science.
dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 2:01 PM
A good point as well.
I’m afraid I was a little suspicious of the question, so I tried to be as literal as I could.
fossten on April 21, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Even an atheist friend of mine told me about the experiment where two atomic clocks, perfectly in synch, were separated…one left on earth, the other put on a supersonic jet and flown at top speed. When the plane landed and the clocks were compared, they were no longer in synch. They weren’t off by much, but they were off. Atomic clocks are the most precise clocks we have ever made. This experiment confirmed that that the flow of time is inversely proportional to velocity. As you go faster, time slows down.
If you count time as a dimension, our “reality” is a four dimensional reality. There is a lot we don’t know about the full extent of our three dimensional universe. There is a lot we don’t know about the fourth dimension of time. But guess what? It doesn’t stop there…
I’m no expert on string theory, but…
It is difficult to imagine dimensions that you didn’t know are there. But it’s easy to see it from the other perspective…look at a blank piece of paper and imagine 2 dimensional beings that are bound by laws that you are not bound by, and they must travel from left to right across that page. To them, their movement is passage through time. You, however, are not bound to their “reality” and you see the whole page, from beginning to end.
You call out to them…
They say, “Where are you?”
You say, “Up here.”
They say, “What is ‘up’? Where is ‘up’?
Similarly, many people think that there is no God because they cannot see him. Jesus was God’s projection into our four dimensional “reality”.
Back to the discussion of God being a higher being who is not bound by time, and can see the beginning from the end, I offer you scripture and a movie quote…
(For those of you unfamiliar with Greek, Alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet and Omega is the last letter.)
Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 2:14 PM
It truly saddens me to think of how many people the non scientific theory of evolution has convinced that there is no God.
What a terrible thing.
Have faith people…even if the whole world believes there is no God…all it means is that the whole world is wrong.
SaintOlaf on April 21, 2008 at 2:15 PM
True science will reveal the truth.
God already revealed the truth to us in the Bible.
True science will bring us back to the Bible.
That is one of the reasons Bible-believing Christians are in favor of true science. What we are against is fascism in the scientific community that tries to stifle any dissent from the unproven “consensus”…whether that “consensus” is Gore-bull Warming or Evolution.
Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Why do you assume that any winglike limb that provides anything short of perfect flight has to be totally useless? Neither flying squirrels nor flying fish truly have wings in the sense that birds do, but they seem to have found their evolutionary quirks to be rather useful.
Watcher on April 21, 2008 at 2:29 PM
And yet they are still squirrels and fish, respectively. Your example defeats the likelihood that birds came from flying squirrels or flying fish. They do, after all, coexist currently.
I’d be interested to see any fossil evidence you have of, for example, a half-formed wing or a nub on a creature that demonstrates an intermediate.
fossten on April 21, 2008 at 2:44 PM
By that “logic” planet formation would be a religion.
So I would say -
***LOSER***
MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Well, then you didn’t learn much, because your “argument” about cud, etc. is like religion 101. It is so basic that only a Googler would attempt it. Just admit which site, I would like to know which one you are relying on such silly basic questions.
Or is hiding where you get your information part of your evolution…
right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Your man Darwin knew who was superior and who was inferior…he used his “science” to determine that, you do prescribe to evolution don’t you?
right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 2:55 PM
There is no getting around the fact that when something adapts, it ONLY LOSES INFORMATION….IT NEVER GAINS NEW INFORMATION.
This fact alone disproves evolution.
If you think not,do tell where this new information comes from.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRtsLv1w1Fw
SaintOlaf on April 21, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Ehm…you’re calling the evolutionists’ logic “LOSER.” Evolutionists are the ones who accuse creationists of this.
In case you didn’t notice.
fossten on April 21, 2008 at 3:03 PM
I’m not much interested in Darwin’s life. Some have an interest in understanding a man in his time. The aspects of a man’s life that transcend time seem more interesting. If his theories of Natural Selection or Common Ancestor last another 150 years or fall tomorrow I don’t have a vested interested in the particular theories.
dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 3:05 PM
What the hell *IS* a species, anyway?
And I don’t mean ‘for certain values of *is*’, either.
There is science to evolution, but its some wacky, hard stuff. Those who claim to ‘know it all’ evolutionarily don’t even really know evolutionary science. Sad.
RiverCocytus on April 21, 2008 at 3:05 PM
You are very welcome. It warms my heart and nearly brings me to tears to know that the post helped you. It’s a busy day for me, but I promise that if you leave more questions for me I will eventually get to them and reply.
Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Essentially, I mean the Vatican which takes a position that it has a special relationship with the Holy Spirit for interpreting scripture on behalf of Catholics. Here is a link to Pope John Paul II on the topic of evolution. John Paul underlines a point from Pius XII: “if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God”.
My point is that some devoted Christians don’t see the mechanics of evolution intruding on their spiritual foundation.
dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 3:22 PM
You’ve backpedaled from “The Church” to saying “some Christians.”
I would willingly bet that the majority of Christians do NOT believe in evolution, simply because the last time there was a poll, over 60% of Americans alone said they do not.
fossten on April 21, 2008 at 3:25 PM
That’s not a very strong piece of evidence for your argument. He’s saying “if”.
fossten on April 21, 2008 at 3:26 PM
No backpedal in this case. I’m using “The Church” to refer to the Catholic Church. I’m saying that “The Church” encompasses some subset of devout Christians. I’m not going to disagree with you on the question of what a majority believe. You are likely right and very likely right about your percentage of Americans.
dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 3:34 PM
shibumiglass,
If you are seeking more, and don’t know where to start, try reading the book of John.
That link shows just the first chapter…you’ll need to click the button that looks like a standard “play” button (single triangle pointing to the right) to go to the next chapter of John. There are 21 chapters in all, but it’s quick reading.
Even you HotAir readers with no interest in God should try reading that just to see what it says. It might help you understand the beliefs of the people you are debating here on HotAir.
Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Right. I’m not asserting that the Vatican makes a scientific case for any of the theories of evolution, but rather they don’t see the theories as incompatible with their theological positions.
With regard to recognizing the collective scholarship behind the theories John Paul goes on to say:
dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 3:46 PM
6 parts of evolution. The subcategories are as follows:
1. Cosmic evolution – The Big Bang. A tiny dot no bigger than a period at the end of this sentence got hot and was spinning and then – BANG! Gas (hydrogen and helium) spread throughout the universe. And I forgot to mention, they say that dot came from nothing. Pretty good trick.
2. Chemical evolution – the origin of all the chemicals, hydrogen and helium, and all the rest of the 90+ elements.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution – development of all the galaxies, planets and stars. And all the laws that go with them.
4. Organic evolution – Life from non life. However, this concept was disproved by Louis Pasteur (greatest microbiologist and also a creationist). Pasteur proved thruogh his famous experiments that all life comes from life, never from non-life. If it is impossible today, what makes us think it was possible back then?
5. Macro-evolution – The changing from one kind of animal to another. This has never been observed.
6. Micro-evolution – Variations within kinds. Now variations do happen, but this is not evolution. A Great Dane, German Sheppard, Collie, and a Chihuahua, are variations within a kind, but they are all dogs. They don’t turn into frogs.
Only the last one of the six parts is science, and it agrees with the Scripture which says, “after his kind” (Genesis 1:24-28). All the rest (1 through 5) are religious. They must be believed. It takes more faith to believe in evolution, than in creation.
So when any of you say you believe in evoultion let’s define the terms first. Which meaning are you talking about? Evolution is not just animals evolving. Are you talking about Cosmic evolution which is the origin of time, space and matter? Or do you…. which meaning are you talking about?
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 4:06 PM
(my apologies in advance if this ends up being a duplicate, but my prior 2 attempts don’t seem to be going through…)
If you guys have never heard the band Apologetix you need to. They are awesome.
Go to myspace-dot-com/apologetix and listen to the song “Bone Digger”…the music and the lyrics are fantastic.
And evolutionists, he didn’t say “made me out of a monkey”…I understand the whole “common ancestor” thing…he said “make a monkey (fool) out of me”. That’s what happens when Bible-believing kids start believing evolution and stop believing the Bible (as SaintOlaf has rightly pointed out).
Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 4:08 PM
The Pope may know how to wave his fingers, but I am certain that I know the Bible better than he does. And if he believes the Bible and evolution are compatible, he’s wrong.
fossten on April 21, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Oh, I was talking to an evolutionist the other day and he told a funny joke… ha ha.. I gotta give them credit, some of them do have a good sense of humour. We were talking bout evolution and he told me, he says, “that a bear fell into the ocean and became a whale.” … lol .. a whale! Can you believe it? What a character. What a guy. Great imagination… ha ha.. a bear fell in… ha ha … bcame a whale… bee-yoo-ti-ful… a big loud happy table slapping laugh!
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Go to http://www.myspace.com/apologetix and listen to the song “Bone Digger”…the music and the lyrics are fantastic and very on-topic for this thread.
Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Sorry to interrupt this conversation, but of course (no sarcasm intended) you think you know the Bible better than he does, since every Christian who disagrees with another thinks he knows the Bible better than the one with whom he disagrees. But (to quote Amadeus) “a little modesty might suit you better” and I won’t go further since we’re both Christians and plus I’m at work on a break and need to go soon!
You’re arguing your position, may I say, very well (back up the thread your “The human race” response made me laugh too) but –though am sure you don’t intend it–ego is starting to creep in. (FAIL, you lose, I win, “stupid” etc.) For the record, I’m a Catholic well versed in the teachings of our Church and agree with every point dedalus has made so far. Have also been following this thread on and off all weekend.
BTW dedalus, you’re not the only one on this thread arguing your position with consistent charity and calmness but you’re the one I noticed most recently on this thread. My compliments.
Must go back to work now and earn my pay….
inviolet on April 21, 2008 at 4:31 PM
I meant, of course, because it was such a great response.
inviolet on April 21, 2008 at 4:33 PM
I think the tide is turning. Atheists have been mocking Bible-believing Christians for too long.
I believe we are about to see the biggest revival this country has ever seen.
Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 4:34 PM
I take your point, but for the record I have not used the word “stupid.”
fossten on April 21, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Once Mike Huckabee wins this election and AP becomes a Christian, I’m sure.
Ars Moriendi on April 21, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Sorry about that, then. Must have mixed up your post w/ another’s.
This whole thread has been really interesting BTW (couldn’t read it all but read big swatches of it), and am not surprised it’s so huge since the topics are so important. Was in for a while WAAAYY upthread and hope to pop in when I get home from work if am able. Take care.
inviolet on April 21, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Can we have a NEW THREAD PLEASE!
.
thanks.
shooter on April 21, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Late response (sorry, weekend obligations intervened).
My point, hurriedly made and albeit unclear, is that libs use the mentality of flawed man to make the excuse for too much government. My argument is just because one person (or a few people), perpetuate a hoax/are mistaken with Piltdown doesn’t suddenly prove ID, just like saying that people are selfish and don’t always make the right decisions is a silly reason to move to more government control. Showing one negative doesn’t necessarily make the case for the alternative.
linlithgow on April 21, 2008 at 4:51 PM
So you are not an evolutionist…finally you are making headway.
But if you are, you have to understand where the theory comes from…a theory created to justify his “position” in life, to make sure that other races are placed in the proper “order”. Read the complete title of his book, that why it is important…the reason behind his religion.
right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 4:52 PM
I’m only on Exodus right now. Exodus in one hand, Worlds In Collision in the other. Long way to go to John. I’m having a blast, though. It really makes the athiests heads explode the way science and so many religous writings agree. ;)
shibumiglass on April 21, 2008 at 5:00 PM
If some guy came up and displayed his Casio Databank watch to you and said “Hey, man… look here, this watch made itself. No seriously. Look, at it… these tiny precision screws, the plastic part, leather strapping… all these holes and the metal, it all made it self. Battery included!” You would say “That’s impossible!” you say. “That watch could not have made itself! Casio Databank watches are made in Japan! It had a designer!” And you’d be right. Yet somehow you don’t apply that same logic when you look at our DNA code which is just so, so incredible. This DNA code is more complex than all the computer programs ever written by man combined. Do you know what the odds are of that happening by random chance? You refuse to accept it was made by an incredibly smart designer. Incredible.
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 5:06 PM
DNA did not arrive by random chance. It just did not happen.
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Maybe you have covered this somewhere earlier in the thread, but if something as complex as a watch requires a creator, and something as complex as a human also does, why doesn’t something as complex as a diety require a creator?
Ars Moriendi on April 21, 2008 at 5:10 PM
lol
I’ve been asking that since I was 4. It just always creeps into the back of my mind. I figure that one of two things will eventually happen. I’ll either find out the answer to that question, or I’ll find out that that’s a really silly question.
~”She laughed like someone who had thought hard about life, and had seen the joke” Terry Pratchett
shibumiglass on April 21, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Yep, Ray Comfort is one of my heroes in the faith.
Way of the Master - Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 5:24 PM
ID is not science. Postulating that an Intelligent Designer did something because we can’t think of another reason for it to have worked is not science. ID should not be taught in science classes.
A theory of how life began or how species evolve or change over time needs to be falsifiable to be considered scientific. That doesn’t mean that we have to be able to easily test it or that the experiment must be practical. It just means that theoretically, some experiment or test should be able to falsify it.
There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God, much less show whether or not he meddled in evolution. If one is postulating that aliens are the Intelligent Designers, then I suppose we could look for evidence of flying saucers or whatever… so that could be considered scientific, if a bit goofy.
If you believe that evolution or natural selection or whatever has been disproven, then fine… come up with another explanation. If you are trying to be scientific, don’t just say that “God did it.” That’s not scientific.
eiconoclast on April 21, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Do you think the Michelson–Morley experiment is ’science’?
shibumiglass on April 21, 2008 at 5:30 PM
I just checked in and saw these last two posts.
I think we ask this question from our four dimensional (three space dimensions + 1 time dimension) perspective. We are thinking in terms of time. We keep going back further and further asking more questions…
If you are “Z”, you ask: What came before Z? What came before Y? What came before X? … What came before B? What came before A?
The Bible starts with:
You are, in my opinion, asking, “Well, what came before that? Who created God?”
As made clear in one of my earlier posts, God is not restricted to the four dimensions we are restricted to (at least that we are currently restricted to in this life). God is the beginning and the end, the alpha and the omega. God is, and was, and shall be. Do you understand the time implications of the following?
Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 5:32 PM
I didn’t ask what came before God. I asked why it is that humans must a creator because they are too complex to arise through evolution, but a diety that is presumably much more complex than a human does not require a creator. Did God evolve?
Ars Moriendi on April 21, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Most assuredly.
On the surface, I ‘know’ that time is a construct - geez, this could get into another 2k comments…
God IS.
Time doesn’t enter into it.
It’s very likely that a wise man named Godel was right when he explained why I can’t grok everything I want to right now.
But it’s also very likely that, except for a very tiny number of humans, living things on this earth cannot wrap their brains around a mere 3 deminsions, instead of the 4 in which we operate.
shibumiglass on April 21, 2008 at 5:42 PM
I haven’t seen the movie “Expelled”, but if it’s about the Evolution / Intelligent Design / Creation debate, it should be thought-provoking. I’ve been surprised to see even some conservatives on the National Review website regard creationists or believers in Intelligent Design as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals, as if they’re out of their minds.
The truth is, SCIENCE cannot say one way or another how life came to be. Science is the attempt to explain nature through human observation of repeated experiments. Evolution theory claims that human beings evolved from apes; the Bible says that human beings were created on the sixth day, after plants and animals. Either way, “science” cannot conclude the veracity of one theory or the other, because no human being was present to observe it!
Theories of evolution or intelligent design are not science, but speculation–inferences based on observed evidence based on ASSUMPTIONS of how things were thousands or millions of years ago. For example, geologists assign dates to fossils based on ratios of concentrations of radioactive and non-radioactive elements, based on assumptions of what the original concentrations might have been when the fossil first formed, and current rates of radioactive decay. But who can know what the original concentrations were, and even if the rock is now in a dry area of the world, that in eons past the climate might have been much wetter, and certain elements might have been leached out of the rock by abundant rainfall, making the assumptions invalid?
Science, by its nature, assumes that natural processes always operated in the same way they do now, and the absence of miracles or divine intervention. This is a good assumption in engineering work, because we want machines that work because they take advantage of normal, repetitive natural processes, without relying on miracles from God.
But this assumption can cause trouble when speculating on the origin of life. Chemists have known for centuries that chemical processes in the inanimate world (outside of living organisms) tend toward increasing disorder (law of entropy), and that an overabundance of a product of a chemical reaction tends to reverse the reaction (Le Chatelier’s Principle).
So, in a theoretical lifeless world in the distant past, how did the first cell come to be, if the laws we now observe operated the same way then? The smallest functional protein requires over a hundred amino acid molecules, all arranged in exactly the right order, out of the 21 amino acids found in living organisms today. In living cells, protein synthesis is guided by RNA, which has specific bonding sites that guide the correct amino acid into the correct spot, and specialized molecules that carry water away from ribosomes where proteins are formed.
But in a world without cells or DNA, this process would have to occur at random. Even if all the required amino acids were somehow mixed together in a “primordial soup” and allowed to react randomly for billions of years, the chances of getting 100 of them to line up in the right order for ONE protein molecule would be less than the chances of winning the Powerball jackpot ten times in a row. Even if this did happen, Le Chatelier’s Principle would get in the way: reactions between amino acids release water, and if the water was not removed somehow, it would react with the newly formed protein and break it apart.
If a protein molecule, much less a living cell, could not form from inanimate matter at random according to modern laws of chemistry, we are forced to conclude that either:
1) Living cells existed from the beginning of time; or
2) The laws of chemistry were different when the first living cells formed than they are now.
The first option begs the question of what formed or created the first living cells, which suggests Intelligent Design by some extremely intelligent being able to suspend natural laws, due to tremendous complexity of living cells.
The second option begs the question of what caused the laws of chemistry to change? Why are today’s physical laws unfavorable to the spontaneous generation of life, but they were favorable when life first appeared on earth? Human beings cannot circumvent the law of entropy, whose consequences include inevitable energy losses when attempting to convert chemical or heat energy to useful work–without the law of entropy, all our energy problems would be solved! But is there a form of life far superior to human beings that CAN change physical laws, and DID SO in the past to enable the origin of life?
If we try to imagine the spontaneous origin of life with today’s laws of chemistry, science runs into a contradiction, which strongly suggests, and probably requires, intelligent design.
Steve Z on April 21, 2008 at 5:44 PM
You would get as many different answers to that question as there are different opinions of what God is.
shibumiglass on April 21, 2008 at 5:45 PM
Comment pages: « 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 »