Posted on 04/21/2008 7:23:01 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In Ben Stein's new film "Expelled," there is a great scene where Richard Dawkins is going on about how evolution explains everything. This is part of Dawkins' grand claim, which echoes through several of his books, that evolution by itself has refuted the argument from design. The argument from design hold that the design of the universe and of life are most likely the product of an intelligent designer. Dawkins thinks that Darwin has disproven this argument.
So Stein puts to Dawkins a simple question, "How did life begin?" One would think that this is a question that could be easily answered. Dawkins, however, frankly admits that he has no idea. One might expect Dawkins to invoke evolution as the all-purpose explanation. Evolution, however, only explains transitions from one life form to another. Evolution has no explanation for how life got started in the first place. Darwin was very clear about this.
In order for evolution to take place, there had to be a living cell. The difficulty for atheists is that even this original cell is a work of labyrinthine complexity. Franklin Harold writes in The Way of the Cell that even the simplest cells are more ingeniously complicated than man's most elaborate inventions: the factory system or the computer. Moreover, Harold writes that the various components of the cell do not function like random widgets; rather, they work purposefully together, as if cooperating in a planned organized venture. Dawkins himself has described the cell as the kind of supercomputer, noting that it functions through an information system that resembles the software code.
Is it possible that living cells somehow assembled themselves from nonliving things by chance? The probabilities here are so infinitesimal that they approach zero. Moreover, the earth has been around for some 4.5 billion years and the first traces of life have already been found at some 3.5 billion years ago. This is just what we have discovered: it's quite possible that life existed on earth even earlier. What this means is that, within the scope of evolutionary time, life appeared on earth very quickly after the earth itself was formed. Is it reasonable to posit that a chance combination of atoms and molecules, under those conditions, somehow generated a living thing? Could the random collision of molecules somehow produce a computer?
It is ridiculously implausible to think so. And the absurdity was recognized more than a decade ago by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix. Yet Crick is a committed atheist. Unwilling to consider the possibility of divine or supernatural creation, Crick suggested that maybe aliens brought life to earth from another planet. And this is precisely the suggestion that Richard Dawkins makes in his response to Ben Stein. Perhaps, he notes, life was delivered to our planet by highly-evolved aliens. Let's call this the "ET" explanation.
Stein brilliantly responds that he had no idea Richard Dawkins believes in intelligent design! And indeed Dawkins does seem to be saying that alien intelligence is responsible for life arriving on earth. What are we to make of this? Basically Dawkins is surrendering on the claim that evolution can account for the origins of life. It can't. The issue now is simply whether a natural intelligence (ET) or a supernatural intelligence (God) created life. Dawkins can't bear the supernatural explanation and so he opts for ET. But doesn't it take as much, or more, faith to believe in extraterrestrial biology majors depositing life on earth than it does to believe in a transcendent creator?
Well, thankfully, I exist and understand outside of Caesar, science, etc.
When I was 4 years old I nearly hung myself to death, playing on “monkey bars”, jumped and clothing got hung up around my neck and caught on a screw and I couldn’t reach.
I experienced quite vivid and supenatural out of body experiences, able to see myself from some, what looked to be 40-60 feet above, and even the people around me...there was a little girl in shock playing in a sandbox below, and her mohter INSIDE their house, who eventually came and rescued me before I was permanently gone.
I was only 4 but it’s just as real and fresh today some 43 years later, and convinced me irrevocably there’s an after life or at the very least life outside of our current confinement.
When you think about it, atheists can spend an inordinate amount of time and energy trying in vain to disprove God...unaware they’re determined to convince others of something’s ‘non-existence’, which only leads many to believe if this “something” doesn’t exist in the first place, why do they:
1. Spend so much time on it.
2. Often appear so desperate as to intend that others not be heard on the subject, often to the point of:
3. getting very angry about it when they’re unsuccessful in denying others of THEIR voice, scientific or otherwise!
“That’s not science”...blah blah blah...nevermind so much of science is concensus in the first place or is redefined every so often.
The truth is they’re often simply angry with God.
From my perspective, there’s not only been a demphasis in our public ‘ruined by liberals’ schools, but at the same time a pervasive politcally correct Godless liberal socialization of children.
Christmas was removed from the school calendar on Dec. 25th here in our county, secretively (as that’s the ONLY way it could have been removed) because the Georgia ACLU threatend to sue., because it’s OFFENSIVE or due to some psychotic myth of separation of church and state.
BTW, when God WAS allowed in schools back in the 50’s, U.S. children were being properly educated, on our history for instance.
Now days it’s shameful what kids are taught about WW2 for instance!
This incessant worry about this becoming some sort of Bible-thumping proselytizing theocracy if children dare pray let alone recognize God in public schools is nutty and unfounded!
Maybe we’re intended to find out in the next step?
What’s the alternative? Die and we’re worm food, lights out, that’s all folks?
Yeah, now THAT leaves me fulfilled!
I personally wonder if it opened eyes as to the social engineering of Godless liberals in schools who are angry and intimidated by God to the point that they’re becoming Stalinesque by squashing free speech of others.
I sure hope so! Before it’s too late and we lose this country once and for all!
Different things work for different people as far as fulfillment goes.
I wouldn't suggest causality on that one, as you can look at it in different ways. When God was in school in the 50s (as in kids being indoctrinated in religion), racism was rampant, blacks were being killed for wanting rights or just for being uppity, and we were in the middle of the Cold War. Since God was kicked out of school (again, just the indoctrination), we've gone to the Moon and Mars and we won the Cold War.
if children dare pray let alone recognize God in public schools is nutty and unfounded
It is nutty and unfounded. The ACLU has actually defended an individual student's right to express religion in school, and won.
Hmmmm...can’t find the New Testament teachings of Christ calling for racism or lynchings...
we went to the moon mars and won the cold war because God had NOT YET been kicked out of NASA and/or the military or the presidency...THANKFULLY Reagan wasn’t calling for the nutty separation of church and state.
I haven’t seen any evidence that ACLU is all about religious freedoms, except perhaps those non-Christian, sure I’ll buy that; but more on the offensive to squash Chritianity specifically.
ThomasMore.org
ACLJ.org
created in part to combat the Christian hating ACLU!
Slippery Slope is not necessarily a logical fallacy if there is a logical connection between the beginning and end and a justification for it being reasonable.
For example, it is generally valid to look at any action the government takes in restricting the people in a slippery-slope manner because the government has a long and proven history of sliding straight down. "Don't worry, the seat belt laws are only a secondary offense," we knew it would eventually be a primary offense, and they there would eventually be roadblocks set up just to check for them. We were right.
Amen to that. Same for logic.
Check this post for what really happened to Gonzalez. He wasn't railroaded, he was a failure who pulled the ID version of the race card when he failed.
There is a big "if" in your statement, namely, "there is a logical connection between the beginning and end and a justification for it being reasonable". So prove that compound statement and you do not have slippery slope otherwise, it is slippery slope and a fallacy.
So you assert in another thread. I do not accept that. Dr. Avalos clearly states the anti-ID criteria involved in the situation in the film. Did you see the film?
Thus my warning against looking for causality.
I haven’t seen any evidence that ACLU is all about religious freedoms, except perhaps those non-Christian, sure I’ll buy that
They had one a while back where a high school valedictorian used her space on the yearbook (the valedictorian gets IIRC half a page for anything) to write a religious message and the administration censored it. The ACLU took her side and won. They also have a history of taking the side of street preachers. Stopped clock I guess.
When Jesus was on earth the first time, doing miracles, raising the dead and so on . . . there were still a bunch of folks in the audience demanding that he give them a “sign” before they’d consider his apparent authority.
No wonder he said: you got your sign, buddy, and you won’t get another except the sign of Jonah!
Facts are facts. I have worked in a university, and what he showed while at the university was not tenure material, any ID consideration aside. His publishing record, his collaboration, his grants, his graduate students -- all crap.
Did you notice the Michael Moore style fudging of the tenure acceptance rate? 90%+ at the university quoted, true, but not in his department, which is the lower rate that should have been quoted if the producers were not trying to deceive the audience. And you fell for it.
Did you see the film?
No, I won't put money in these peoples' pockets. I'll see it when I don't have to pay. I did the same with Michael Moore's films. But I have seen the previews and read transcripts, and this movie might as well have been done by Michael Moore's religious twin.
For slippery slope to be a fallacy it has to be absurd or a very far reach. In this case, if I understand the argument, letting ID in class is supposed to end in unlimited proselytizing.
It is not hard to go there. ID is religious-based, no matter what the current sanitized propaganda is lately. You let ID be taught in its current religious, non-scientific state, you're proselytizing, telling a captive group of kids your religious beliefs are the correct ones.
Now once you start proselytizing your creation stories, other religions will want to also. There is ample independent evidence (one thing that helps slippery slope not be a fallacy) of other religions wanting the special treatment Christians get in this country, from displays next to the creche at city hall, to non-Christian prayers at city council meetings.
So, yes, there is a reasonable slippery slope from allowing ID to wide-scale religious proselytizing.
Absolutely true, but your opinions are not facts. And because you worked at a university does not make your opinion any closer to fact. Janitors work in universities too.
And you fell for it.
What are you, ... a mind reader? I don't recall hearing any tenure rate mentioned in the film. I could be wrong, but since you haven't seen the film, you are in no position to testify that it was.
Your first paragraph is an assertion followed by a mischaracterization. Prove your assertion and correct the mischaracterization.
Your second paragraph begins with a useless statement followed by another assertion. You follow that with a further mischaracterization of the point plus a straw man argument. Two fallacies in one. You are on a roll.
Your third paragraph starts with a false conclusion based on the mischaracterization and strawman. You stuff that strawman with more straw. You seem to think that the mere display of a religious symbol is proselytizing. Well it is not. Neither is a person who prays. Someone passing out a pamphlet on their religion might be proselytizing.
You last statement is an unwarranted conclusion, but may be considered your opinion, which makes it as useful as your favorite bogeyman's opinion is to me, worthless.
I think it was an exercise in “preaching to the choir”.
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.