Posted on 07/18/2009 7:39:00 AM PDT by Gordon Greene
Trailer: ‘Creation’ — ‘You’ve Killed God, Sir’
Watching the trailer it looks as if they are trying to give a human face to Darwin that seems a bit hard to imagine. The characters are glorified to the point of sticky-sweet perfection which, of course is Hollywood.
Judging strictly from the trailer, the message seems to be that Darwin's "science" was perfect knowledge and religion is finally unmasked as the true heresy... more of the same but with a pretty bow on top.
The foregone conclusion follows mainstream education in America: that Evolution is science fact and not science theory. All that remains is the nail in God's coffin to make it official.
'Course, you Evo's can start your hollerin' that this is only the trailer and if we misled Christians would just watch it we would understand Chucky D the way you do... We don't already know what the Hollywood spin is??? Strange we would make assumptions about Hollywood based on everything we've seen for the past few decades, but I rekon I will. Umm-Hmmm.
(Excerpt) Read more at bighollywood.breitbart.com ...
Even (otherwise) intelligent evolosers recognize the problem they have with the basic laws of probability: when the odds against something reach a certain point, then they assume that the 17 billion years they see as the universe’s age isn’t long enough for it to have happened. That’s the basic motivation for “string theory” and the related notion of myriad universes; they know evolution doesn’t have a prayer in this universe if this one is it.
What's sad is that I've actually known several biologists/biochem/molecular bios who were creationists/IDers in confidence, but who were also quite candid about the fact that saying so publically means the end of your career, specifically because of the McCarthyist attitudes of the evos in the "science establishment."
Your comparison is not far off. Evolutionists operate in much the same way that the leftist political establishment works - first, you demonise anyone who disagrees with you are "unfit" in various ways. Then, you use the power of the positions you occupy to deny entry to those who disagree or remove those who are "unmasked" later on. Then, you use the fact that they can't get anywhere as "evidence" of how it's "obvious" that they're wrong and unsuitable.
They're lying, as usual... PE was invented for two specific purposes, i.e. to get around two particular problems, i.e. the Haldane dilemma, and the total lack of CLEARintermediate fossils. If there was the slightest bit of hope for "phyletic gradualism", they wouldn't NED PE, and it would not exist. Gould and his pals invented PE to get the dead hand of evolution and the evolosers off of and out of his own discipline of paleontology. It was meant to provide evolosers with a theory which would not interfere with real research.
Not by my recollection. Although I wasn't a scientist, I was interested in this subject at the time, and followed it very closely, reading not only many popular accounts of the PE controversies, but many of the journal articles as well, and even attending a couple of scientific conferences and talking with some of the principals.
The way the TO faq describes this is the same way I remember it. PE advocates readily conceded that there were good examples of Phyletic Gradualism in the fossil record, and PG advocates likewise conceded that there were examples of PE transitions, including the ones discovered and published by Eldredge and Gould themselves. It was never an either/or. It was only about whether PE was the normal pattern or an exceptional one.
PE was invented for two specific purposes, i.e. to get around two particular problems, i.e. the Haldane dilemma, and the total lack of CLEARintermediate fossils.
I think maybe there's something you don't grasp about "Punctuated Equilibrium." It was only about evolution at (not above) the species level, saying that species generally stayed the same for long periods of time, and evolved into other species (or rather populations of them did) over short periods of time.
Like nearly all creationists, you imagine it as some (darkly conspiratorial) attempt to explain the (supposed) lack of transitional fossils at higher taxonomic levels, linking, say, cats and dogs, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, etc.
PE HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THAT!
PE was only an attempt to explain the relative lack of transitionals linking one species to another very similar species, i.e. linking immediately related species. It was never about getting from fish to amphibians, but rather about getting from one species of salamander to another species of salamander, or one species of salmon to another species of salmon.
No PE advocate that I am aware of ever denied that there are plenty of transitional forms linking many of the higher taxonomic levels. After all the species level is where we do find a general pattern of "status" (things staying the same) in the fossil record, but "status" is absent at every other level: The species content of genera is constantly changing over geological time, as is the generic content of families, the familial content of orders, and so on.
BTW, since nearly all modern creationists reject the idea of fixed species, instead arguing that vague (but maybe corresponding more or less to something like the Family level) "kinds" were created, PE properly has nothing to do with the CREVO controversy. It is only about the levels of evolution that creationists (are supposed to) ACCEPT as "evolution within created 'kinds'."
PE doesn’t say that phyletic gradualism *doesn’t* occur, just that it isn’t the norm, and thus they are not mutually exclusive.
PE came from Gould and Eldredge’s study of allopatric speciation, which in turn came as a result of the science of population dynamics.
Gould didn’t deny that clear intermediate fossils were found - but he argued that when found they *usually* came from peripheral isolates of the “main” population of a species, and thus he argued that paleontology showed that allopatric speciation is how evolution usually occurs.
After his and Eldredge’s 1972 paper, they were flooded with examples from other scientists of examples of clear intermediate fossils - but they were able to display that in *most* of those cases that the *main* population of the species continued on relatively unchanged, and thus the examples of clear intermediate fossils found were actually more evidence of PE (or allopatric speciation).
Thanks for the ping!
Ask them if they believe in space aliens in UFOs seeding earth — yep..., great idea...
Ask them if they believe in our Creator God creating mankind — no way, Jose...
LOL...
Interesting little experiment to do here in terminology....
Let's compare and imagine the reaction to these sets of terms or ideas.
Origins:
- aliens seeding earth- "scientific" (presuming for a minute that Dawkins is a scientist)
-beginning of the universe from singularity- "scientific"
-chemical reactions coming together to assemble themselves into information containing DNA, leading to sentient life-"scientific"
- God creating life on earth- religious (fairy tale of a giant man in the sky using magic)
Multi-universe theory, alternate dimensions, time dilation- "scientific"
Heaven and hell- fantasy
Extra-terrestrials-"scientific"
Angels and demons- mythology
SETI- looking to contact and communicate with intelligent life that's presumed to exist in outer space-"scientific"
The Bible, Divine revelation by God- you've got to be kidding me.
Hmmm....It looks like the humanists/atheists have set up their own system of beliefs to counter the Judeo-Christian ones and accept them on faith, since there's no basis on which those conclusions could be reached.
Then they turn around and sneer and mock those who are saying that what they propose has already happened- that there is highly advanced, extra-terrestrial life that exists in a multi-dimensional universe who has contacted mankind.
And imagine that, all done for free- no funding needed for SETI.
They propose that their speculations are a better choice and religious ones lack validity because......haven't figured that one out yet.
Considering that this thread is a discussion of what people in the scientific and religious 'communities' BELIEVE at this time, I think my remark is highly important.
I'm not the one claiming that EVOLUTION is a LAW, and not a THEORY.
One of the central themes of religion, especially Judeo-Christian religion, is the idea that man's judgment is imperfect, too imperfect to be relied upon as a guide for the human race and secondly that a guide beyond the ability of human effort and wisdom might exist.
Hence it's quite nice for Darwinists to think of evolution as “progress” and “advancement” in every way. To suppose that “complexity” is the same as “sophistication” and that man stands at the pinnacle of hundreds of millions of years of progress and advancement in every way appeals to the self important egos.
The God of Christians says man is responsible to Him for their actions and they will be called to account for those actions, super intelligent aliens, like irresponsible fathers, just seed space with children and abandon them.
For starters you should not be using talk.origins "FAQ"s as a basis for any sort of argument amongst educated people. TO is a collection of hard-core zealots and their "FAQ" system is a bunch of garbage and has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked by more serious scholars.
In that the more formal education one has, the more likely will trend to the “left of center”, that may be true. However, I am a biological scientist and I can honestly say, with the exception of close friends, politics isn’t a common topic. What are more common are discussions of policy through the eyes of people trained in critical thinking, and dismal support ALL politicians provide for their positions and arguments.
“Exactly right...Ask them if they believe in space aliens in UFOs seeding earth — yep..., great idea...Ask them if they believe in our Creator God creating mankind — no way, Jose...
LOL...”
Well, it’s nice to see you guys have it all figured out - this science, psychology, and theology stuff is easy if you have a critical mass of genius as you seem to have assembled here on this thread.
“However, origins is usually avoided religiously, shall we say, by most of the evos”
As is the question of whether anyone gets into heaven if they don’t agree with the creatards.
You assume that men and women of science have no religion. Does that mean that men and women of the “creation science” mindset have no brain?
Actually, it's the "Darwinists" in these discussions who frequently have to point out that evolution doesn't imply advancement. Your characterization doesn't hold water.
“I’m not the one claiming that EVOLUTION is a LAW, and not a THEORY.’
Reread what I posted: Evolution is a fact; the Theory of Evolution provides the mechanism to explain that fact. No laws involved.
Even if you reject their arguments' conclusion, it's still a valid source for what the argument is. In the same way, I'd trust Howard Dean to express what the Democrats' arguments on health care are, even if I thought the arguments themselves were worthless. I'd trust TalkOrigins to summarize the PE position accurately whether I accepted it or not.
What a non-sequitur of a response.
That was so lame.
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.