Posted on 04/17/2008 4:07:06 PM PDT by Aristotelian
I confess that when the producers of Ben Stein’s new documentary “Expelled” called, offering me a private screening, I was less than excited.
It is a reality of PC liberalism: There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned. Global warming. Gay “rights.” Abortion “rights.” On these and so many other issues there is enlightenment, and then there is the Idiotic Other Side. PC liberalism’s power centers are the news media, the entertainment industry and academia and all are in the clutches of an unmistakable hypocrisy: Theirs is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension.
Evolution is another one of those one-sided debates. We know the concept of Intelligent Design is stifled in academic circles. An entire documentary to state the obvious? You can see my reluctance to view it.
I went into the screening bored. I came out of it stunned.
Ben Stein’s extraordinary presentation documents how the worlds of science and academia not only crush debate on the origins of life, but also crush the careers of professors who dare to question the Darwinian hypothesis of evolution and natural selection.
Stein asks a simple question: What if the universe began with an intelligent designer, a designer named God? He assembles a stable of academics – experts all -- who dared to question Darwinist assumptions and found themselves “expelled” from intellectual discourse as a result. They include evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg (sandbagged at the Smithsonian), biology professor Caroline Crocker (drummed out of George Mason University), and astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez (blackballed at Iowa State University).
That’s disturbing enough, but what Stein does next is truly shocking. He allows the principal advocates of Darwinism to speak their minds.
(Excerpt) Read more at mrc.org ...
I thought we were laughing about the scientist in the movie who said lightning formed the first protein.
No, exobiology is the “study” of extraterrestrial life. It holds the distinction of being the only “branch of science” that, so far, has nothing to study.
What’s funny is that the “science”, when pursued with an open mind, leads one to God as the Creator.
However, when you have a closed materialist mind, you have to come up with cockeyed theories like the “multiverse” and the yo-yo universe and the spontaneous uncaused big bang.
I have been a life scientist at the doctoral level for over forty years. Your behavior leads me to believe that you do not have the education nor demeanor to further this discussion, therefore I will close with you.Does that mean you stopped being current in the literature 40 years ago? That would make sense, given the article I cited was from *1972*. See you only missed it by 4 years!
Darwin also stated that if any structure could be shown that couldn’t have developed gradually by minute mutations, his theory would be proven invalid.
Looks like you fit the bill on the “PC Liberalism” part of the article.
You’re demonstrating the left’s debate tactic of “proof by arrogant condescension”.
Post 78 to you was in error, my bad. Thanks
“You’re the one that brought up proteins(not amino acids, a claim much easier to verify) “
Once more, you cannot argue the merits of evolution without explanation as to how , unaided, a protein manufactured itself. Your obfuscation led you to toss AAs at me in hopes I`d simply run away in fear. I dismissed your Miller/Urey/prebiotic nonsense with ease.
Now, when will the atheist/darwinists prove a single protein arose unaided.Even if you could,which you cannot,it would probably be one single, isolated, worthless protein, which would quickly fall apart in the presence of water or ultraviolet light from the sun.
Without the first protein there is no evolution.
Makes you wonder if the first archeologists that found writing on stone tablets in Egypt thought
“hey, look how these markings self formed on this stone!”
You’d have to be equally ignorant to look at the genome and think that it formed at random with selective pressure.
I thought we were laughing about the scientist in the movie who said lightning formed the first protein.AFAIK the only people saying that are on FR. Expelled talked about generating organic molecules from inorganic ones.
The hollow arrogance of a “sputtering atheist” ?
Did you notice the author?
It was Ben Stein.
Doesn't theology, pursued with a closed mind, produce the same result?
Which one?
ah yes, again with the “which one”.
you really need to get something better than that.
I’ve been blowing off a similar “which morality is correct” argument from libs for a long time.
Your point would be that if an argument can’t be made for some specific Creator, there must not be one.
Where’d ya pick that tactic up? Some lefthanded circle jerk?
Once more, you cannot argue the merits of evolution without explanation as to how , unaided, a protein manufactured itself. Your obfuscation led you to toss AAs at me in hopes I`d simply run away in fear. I dismissed your Miller/Urey/prebiotic nonsense with ease.Yawn... now you're making something resembling an argument. First, I haven't made any arguments(other than pointing out your dishonesty for conflating proteins and amino acids). The voices in your head don't count.Now, when will the atheist/darwinists prove a single protein arose unaided.Even if you could,which you cannot,it would probably be one single, isolated, worthless protein, which would quickly fall apart in the presence of water or ultraviolet light from the sun.
Without the first protein there is no evolution.
Second, evolution is *science*. Science is *empirical*. Do you even know what empiricism is?
I never sourced Scientific American. I am in no way dependent upon the popular press for my knowledge of Science or the preposterousness of the “Incompetent Design” movement and their ‘cdesign proponentists”.
And yes I have a bias. I prefer truth to lies. I prefer Science to shoddy theology. I prefer education to propaganda. Bias is a good thing in these instances, and only a postmodernist liberal thinks bias is an unequivocally bad term.
Maybe, but that’s a non-sequiter to a discussion of open minded scientific pursuit. Try to keep up.
Maybe, but that’s a non-sequiter to a discussion of open minded scientific pursuit. Try to keep upOh? He's giving you an alternate, in his view, more likely hypothesis. Sounds pretty scientific to me.
Just as Natural selection would predict. Only those completely ignorant of Biology and Evolution would think that a dog could be or should be turned into a cat or a cow over a few thousand years.
Humans used selective pressure to make them into the kinds of dogs we needed, hundreds of different kinds for hundreds of different purposes; we already domesticated cats and cows.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.