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?
I think I see the problem. This arrowhead exists only in your imagination. Your hypothesis that it is an arrowhead is arbitrary, and it may or may not have any resemblance to anything that is or has ever been an arrowhead. I haven't and am not going to get to see it before I am expected to specify how to test it. Whatever the imagined characteristics of this arrowhead are will change in order to make whatever tests I specify produce apparently erroneous results.
That would have been the honorable thing to do. He said he came out on top since he effectively got a five-year sabbatical out of it (he didn't have any actual duties as part of the IFL). If I were a cynic, which I am, I'd be entertaining the thought that he gamed everything to get this result. He gets to claim victim, gets free publicity, gets to keep his job with no responsibility, pretty sweet.
I find that a little hard to justify, since Sloan and his people invited Dembski to Baylor. Apparently discussion revealed Dembski's ambition to form a center which met the aspirations of Sloan and the others. It might be that Dembski gamed the system after the absorption into IFL. I really don't see what would have been lost by who was his direct boss as long as the desired functioning of the center remained the same. It certainly seems that the IFL would have been a friendly environment for the center. What was the center's crime? Providing a conference called "The Nature of Nature"?
Well, what do you think hypothetical means? And no, my arrowhead is not an arbitrary thing. It is an arrowhead, or at least what I think is an arrowhead.
I have no idea of the function of this thing. I do not know the identity of the maker. But I do know that natural selection and random mutation did not make it.
I made the mistake of assuming there was some grasp of reality involved in that thought.
You obviously have no intention of having a rational discussion. You have piled logical fallacies on logical fallacies and resort to Ad Hominem. You can't or won't answer a simple question about blood.
My points are clearly demonstrated in the thread. So are your actions. Good day.
Again, this is just the cynic side. He knew that the underhanded establishment of the center would cause controversy (faculty apparently learned of it when the web site went up). Since the president was behind him he knew he wouldn't lose his position over any initial controversy. After the resolution of the issue he could have just coasted and still have been expected to do work as the director. But he made that press release to stir it up again, knowing there would be repercussions. After the repercussions he got to play victim and not have to do any work.
I don't trust Dembski. He was in on the Dover circus. He didn't testify because it looked like their side was going to lose and the DI didn't want to be involved in a test case loss, so they pulled out. The way he talks, it seems he supports including the clip from The Inner Life of the Cell in the movie without permission just as a way to raise controversy ("they made sure to budget for lawsuits").
If you think that's an arrowhead, it won't matter whether I intended to or not it isn't going to happen.
1. ID is based in common sense for many of us, DI or others may see it solely as religious, but I firmly believe most ALSO see the non-explanation of some accidental non-purposeful big bang and what followed, is simply insufficient and ID at least explores a more meaningful theory of our beginning.
2. No it’s not. Just because people reject the above non-explanation of a big bang only means that’s what WE believe! There may be efforts to have evolution replaced but that too is wrong, but that’s not what the vast majority of people want, IMO. I think, from what I’ve seen, most just want both theories to be FREELY discussed. Healthy debate, in science class, in Sunday school, on the town square, on the side walk and in here is a GOOD thing.
3. Ummmm, that would NOT be because of Christians “proselytizing”...the CLEAR record indicates a severe attack on our Christian culture and heritage and a successful one at that!
4. That’s NOT logical at all! We HAD free discussion of God, we even had prayer in school...and oh look! We’re NOT a theocracy, there’s been no Spanish Inquisition...or other such terrible horrors! We managed to survive, and MOST of us have reached our limts with the GOD-HATING LEFT!
Incidentally what we HAVE had since this incessant separation of church and state madness with secular Godless liberals getting their way, is a systematic DEGRADATION of our culture though.
The slippery slope has been breached long ago, but it’s VERY different than what you fear:
As I’ve pointed out, just the mere word ‘Christmas’ is considered so offensive, that the Georgia ACLU threatened our school district with legal action if they didn’t remove it from the school calendar. NO parent was notified, and redictably they foldedlike a tent! VERY UNAmerican to say the very least!!!!
I guess the fact that Christmas is a federal holiday escapes them.
Los Angeles and Las Cruces have crosses in their town’s logos. Baaaaaaad and most offensive, so naturally God-hating secular “progressive” liberals bring legal action to have them removed. If successful of course Las Cruces will most likely need to look into renaming the hundreds of years old town since Las Cruces means “the crosses”!
Kids in Florida had to sing “O Holiday Tree” once again “O Christmas Tree” is just too offensive to foreigners there.
Sadly, there are DOZENS of cases like this all over the country, (and it’s worse in Europe) so the CLEAR evidence is just the precise opposite of what you describe.
Of course some people are fine with it, but most Americans are fed up!
ThomasMore.org
aclj.org
At one time I used to think some of this stuff was snopes, or made up, but it’s not.
Montgomery County Maryland...Notorious liberal enclave...banned santa from lighting the Christmas Tree, ‘cause he might offend the poor muslim kids in town!
THANKFULLY 23 santas showed up!
William and Mary removed a crucifix INSIDE A CHAPEL because it might offend someone!
The idiot president wound up resigning, thankfully so, but...
THIS CHRISTIAN-HATING MADNESS MUST STOP, OR WE’LL LOSE OUR FREEDOMS AND THIS COUNTRY AND OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS AS DESCRIBED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS!
Why do you say it was underhanded? It did not involve changing any science department. It was fulfilling the wishes of an already established unit of Baylor. Baylor does not have to ask the assembled professors or senate whether Baylor can create an entity outside of the departments of those professors. The president and those in the IFL evidently had the power to do what was done. If anybody had a say about the actions of the president it would have been the Board of Regents. They are not the faculty.
Board of RegentsAbout the Board of RegentsThe Board of Regents is the official governing body of Baylor University. There are 31 voting members of the Board, as well as several Regents Emeriti who do not vote in Regent business. Regents are selected by election, with 75% of the membership elected by the Regents themselves and 25% elected by the Baptist General Convention of Texas. Regents serve a three-year term, and may serve up to three terms consecutively before they must rotate off the Board for at least one year. |
I don't trust Dembski. He was in on the Dover circus
Well that is your opinion, but the Dover controversy was not his doing.
Speaking of the clip, I saw the clip in the movie and it is not the clip that Harvard has. The computer generated scenes are not the same, but they have some similar elements. Premise media, who made the film is putting its money where its mouth is.
On April 14, 2008, Premise Media filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking declaratory judgment that there is no copyright or other infringement. Premise Media also seeks its attorneys’ fees in responding to the XVIVO claims.
That being said, Yoko Ono is suing Premise because she alleges that they used the song "Imagine" without gaining permission. That should be interesting.
Answer my blood question if you are sincerely seeking debate.
Muslims aren’t trying to get ID in schools as science?
What country are you referring to?
If I continue this "debate" with you, can I expect more of this "I think that's an arrowhead" nonsense?
Except for one problem: Sternberg didn't lose his job. Yes, lots of nasty email about him was sent by his peers because of things he'd done (publishing without process, mishandling of SI artifacts, etc.), but they never led to a dismissal.
Answer my blood question. And you can stipulate any functional test you want, understanding that my arrowhead is identical in every aspect that we can measure, except your functional test which determines “arrowheadness” functionality.(obviously, the sample has passed the test)
The idea of a creator was accepted in this country LONG before the terms “creationists”, or “Intelligent design, ID or IDers” in this country!
There’s a MUCH larger issue than science here:
Frankly, a systematic effort to remove God MOSTLY by people angry with God or angry with believers have systematically, and all too often successfully, have removed the freedoms of Christians from science, politics, law etc.
Of course if you’re fine with it, you don’t see it or aren’t willing to accept it’s the problem that it is.
My warning would be: beware of Martin Noemeller’s lessons: First they came for so and so and I didn’t say anything, then they came for...etc., but once they came for me, no one was left to speak up!
One day liberals will decide it’s best for you and everyone else, BASED on the science mind you, that football is to be outlawed. And people will be looking around at each other stupefied wondering why football has been banned, AND they dare not utter Christianity anywhere but behind closed doors, and only on Sundays, you know, where it belongs so nobody can be “offended”!
yup....especially Godless liberals looking to BAN BAN everything they can’t stand.
IT’S NOT SCIENCE!
whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
To answer your question, dried blood does not pass the test of function. Dried blood is not blood, it used to be blood but it isn't any more. It may accurately be described as "blood evidence" or "blood residue", but it is not blood.
The second sentence is not particularly coherent. Identical to what?
He lost his RA position despite the SI confirmation to the congressional committee that he was an RA in good standing. He was given an RC position. I consider that losing his job especially in light of emails indicating directly that SI did what you seem to think Baylor did, something underhanded.
Ummmm, evidence? The evidence is simply PROFOUND!
One need only look at the hot air cult of “scientists” that proclaim THERE IS NO DEBATE!
We’ve seen it all too often before elsewhere.
“ID IS NOT SCIENCE”.
Yet no one can offer anything about a definition of science other than it’s merely the concensus of like minded people!
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.