Posted on 02/03/2008 12:58:53 PM PST by KayEyeDoubleDee
...For most of my life, I believed the answers to these questions were fairly straightforward. Everything that exists is created by a Loving God. That includes rocks, trees, animals, people, really everything. All along I had been well aware that other people, very smart people, believe otherwise. Rather than God's handiwork, they see the universe as the product of random particle collisions and chemical reactions. And rather than regard humankind as carrying the spark of the divine, they believe we are nothing more than mud animated by lightning...
Trailer requires Shockwave Flash:
Super TrailerMore trailers here:
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.phpIMDB page:
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/
(Excerpt) Read more at expelledthemovie.com ...
Re: your tagline.
One point I have brought up to only be solidly ignored by evos is; the age of Adam on the day he was created.
God created him as a full grown man, say, for the sake of argument, with the maturity of a 21 year old. Take a scientist and creationist and ask them both how old Adam is?
You know the answers. The scientist would say 21 years old based on the physical, observable evidence. The creationist would say one day old.
You know what comes next....
The scientist ridicules the creationist for denying the obvious and living in a deluded fantasy land believing fairy tales. The creationist tells the scientist that he is wrong because God said it and therefore it’s true, despite appearances.
So who’s right?
All I ever get for that answer is .......*crickets chirping*
One philosophy is perfectly consonant with spirituality, Christianity and theism; but assumes that the universe is predictable and ordered. The other philosophy is that the universe is not perfectly ordered, and God needed to intercede to get the result HE wanted, and Science has no way of measuring or predicting this intercession. Miracles are the realm of God, not the realm of Science.
I.D. seeks to explain the natural phenomena of common descent (yes I.D. believes in the common descent of all life) by saying it could not happen by natural means and that therefore Miraculous intervention was needed. This is not Science and it has not been a productive philosophy. It tells you everything about nothing and nothing about everything. It has no explanatory or predictive power.
Far from denying God, the majority of Biologists in the U.S.A. are Christian and believe evolution through natural selection is the best theory to explain the diversity of life. We believe in a Creation and a Creator so perfect that all things that God wanted to happen would happen. Stars form by natural means. Planets form by natural means. He commanded the Oceans to bring forth life; it is very likely that life is formed by natural means. It is certain that life changes in response to its environment utilizing natural means. This does not in any way deny God.
It is Creationists who assume that God had to do it the way THEY say he had to do it; trying to shoe horn all of creation into a 6,000 year old box. It is I.D.ists who assume that Creation itself is a shoddy construct that needs divine intervention in order to get major changes in biological systems. Neither is very good theology.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
Saint Thomas Aquinas
You really have to keep your blinders on to believe that.
Describe a hypothetical research project in science in which religion or God is relevant.
Naturalism provides no certainty. It assumes that everything always was as it is, and will continue to be so. It assumes stability.
Scratches head...
An interesting way to look at things. At least we can agree there is a Creator, even though we disagree on the particulars. :)
I don’t agree with you. I think there is merit to the idea of ID.
I am glad there are scientists who are willing to say so. I think it is wrong if others try to shut them up.
Even the founder of the Discovery Institute has admitted in public that they jumped the gun, demanding time in school science classes before contributing anything to science.
My problem with ID is that it has had 200 years in which to come up with something other than gap theory, and even gap theory has been wrong every time it has been specific.
Sorry bud. You aren't choosing empiricism. You are assuming naturalism and confusing 'after the fact' story-telling with technology.
You do prove my point about being unable to admit that your beliefs are based on the philosophy of naturalism, however.
Clearly you don't understand what I have said and choose to misrepresent my positions in order to have something to say.
The least you can do is work on your spelling...
I am glad there are scientists who are willing to say so. I think it is wrong if others try to shut them up.
Science has developed a method over the years that works quite well.
For some reason, creationists continue to try to sneak into science with methods which are contrary to the scientific method--creation "science" and ID are the latest of these attempts.
I suppose most of this is in an effort to bolster their particular beliefs with the respectable mantle of science, but what good is that in the long run if you have to destroy the very method and respectability you are trying to assume?
Scientists know what is science, and what is not science. Why can't creationists respect that and do their own thing in their own venues?
>>This coming from a guy who beleives that the sun revolves around the Earht and who touts the medical benefits of shoving coffee up one’s arse. You are a quack.<<
This is unfair on several levels.
1. “Quack” has a specific definition that is not met here. Not to mention that persona attacks don’t help anything.
2. An incorrect belief does not invalidate everything a person says of believes.
3. This blanket attack on coffee enemas does consider the brand of coffee being used.
>> S.a.Wilsons Therapy Blend Coffee is the first and only coffee that has been specifically blended and processed with enema use in mind. It is also the only coffee that has been lab tested to be more effective.<<
Because you said, "The discussions about Creation/evolution provide much smoke but little light."
Recognizing that science is based on the philosophy of naturalism and cannot return any answer except a 'natural' one is not smoke but is very much light. It leads to the realization that the whole discussion is about competing philosophies, not empipricism vs philosophy as the naturalists would have you believe. Once the difference is recognized as being between two philosophies, the naturalistic position collapses quite quickly. That is very much 'light'.
This is why the naturalists fight it tooth and nail. They recognize the implications, even if the IDer's and creationists don't.
Feel free to list any modern techology not based on scientific theories -- or stories, if you prefer the term.
I would even argue that the naturalistic underpinnings of science are inferior.
It is the naturalistic assumption that science's ignorance about non-coding DNA meant that it was 'junk' that delayed real scientific advancement for decades.
Were science based on the assumption of ID, scientists would probably not have written off non-coding sections as 'junk' but would have looked for function much earlier than waiting until they stumbled over it. It is the classic position of the early scientists who studied nature because they believed that natural laws meant a law-giver and that nature was therefore understandable.
Having science usurped by atheistic naturalists has not improved scientific progress, but has hindered it.
>>Recognizing that science is based on the philosophy of naturalism and cannot return any answer except a ‘natural’ one is not smoke but is very much light. It leads to the realization that the whole discussion is about competing philosophies, not empipricism vs philosophy as the naturalists would have you believe.<<
Let’s assume that statement is correct.
It is useful to ask why we teach and learn science in the firt place. I would argue that the reason is advance civilization by producing practical application and also to better understand how the universe works.
Given that the scientific method method works for those two goals, even if you conclude there is a philosophy behind it, the practical results justify the investment.
To undercut this investment with other philosophies that do not produce any practical results is wasteful.
That is not to say there is no place for other philosophies but not in science class.
One might believe philosophically that lightning is not the same as the electrochemical force found in Leydan jars and the Ben Franklin and his kite were wrong. Feel free to belive that. But as long as electromagnetic science produces useful results and competing philosophies do not produce useful results, then spending science class time teaching against electrical theory is wasteful, much like teaching against developmental biology is wasteful.
Calling electrical theory Franklinism is as wrong as calling developmental biology Darwinism is wrong.
I never said what you are implying. You are still trying to equate technology and 'after the fact' story-telling. But I do understand that you must try to support 'after the fact' story-telling in an attempt to give it some credence.
I suppose that counts as a valid attempt in naturalistic circles.
Were science based on the assumption of ID nobody would have bothered to look.
Why bother, when the answers are all "known" already.
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.