New Stanek WND column, "Expelled from 'Expelled'"

WND%20logo.gif

On April 18, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, will boast the largest U.S. opening of any documentary film ever.

Scheduled for release in 1,000 theatres, Expelled will be hotter than Farenheit 9/11, which debuted on 868 screens, and much more convenient to see than An Inconvenient Truth, which I was surprised to find opened on only four screens nationwide despite all the hype, peaking at 587 before
its appeal melted....

Liberals have been going ape about Expelled for months as it has been
screened around the country....

"This is not a scientific battle; this is a worldview battle," Expelled producer Mark Mathis told me.

Mathis has encountered unbridled hostility from the scientific establishment, i.e., avowed Darwinists, at reviews.....

Expelled connects atheism and Darwinism with no missing link, one of the film's two major flashpoints....

"What's driving it is Darwinism is a foundational principle - scientific validation of secularism, atheism, liberalism - and that it strikes at the core of who they are," said Mathis....

expelled 4.jpg

Not only is Darwinism foundational to atheism, it is foundational to eugenics, the other
reason for the left's apoplexy against Expelled, according to Mathis. They
cannot tolerate the connection Expelled draws between Darwinism and Adolf Hitler.

Or Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

"Planned Parenthood is a direct outgrowth of Darwinism," said Mathis....

Continue reading my column today, "Expelled from 'Expelled,'" on WorldNetDaily.com.


Comments:

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Expelled premiere. They just got hit with a copyright violation notice, and they may have to do some creative editing.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 10, 2008 8:40 AM


Actually I predict it will be a complete flop; look what happened in Florida when they paid people to go.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 8:43 AM


Darwinism is a term that refers to the concept of survival of the fittest.

Now let's see. That means the definition of success is increasing your numbers. In a generally free society like ours some groups are increasing their numbers.

Mormons, Orthodox Jews, Fundamentalist Muslims, Fundamentalist Christians.

These folks believe that children are blessings and they raise their children to believe it.

If you need a graphic, check out

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/WillYourGrandchildrenBeJews.htm

With their higher birthrate, orthodox jews will outnumber their liberal cousins by about 90:1 in a few generations.

The bible commands fertility.

Darwinism explains the success of the fertile.

Whether you belive the bible or darwinism, the message is the same:

You breed, you succeed.

Sanger's vision, as I understand it was more from the fit, less from the unfit. So by her definition, the aforementioned groups would be "fit".

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2008 8:43 AM


And again Jill, I am not surprised you have completely ignored their lies and deception I have pointed out to you several times. I guess it really is about worldview and not about facts. How do you expect facts to sink in to pro-choicers if you refuse to see them yourself?

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 8:45 AM


Is the film about discrediting evolution or discrediting institutions who kick out people who disagree with evolution?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2008 8:50 AM


You breed, you succeed.

So being a fundamentalist is genetic and is passed on by breeding? Who knew! Call the newspapers! I think this fits under the BREAKING NEWS category!!

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 10, 2008 8:53 AM


Hier,

LOL the Christian gene...

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 8:54 AM


Hehhehe. It must be recessive though, since my parents didn't manage to pass it on to me.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 10, 2008 8:55 AM


It could also be exceptionally mutable, looking at all of these people converting or rejecting...

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 9:00 AM


GREAT post, Jill. I think Ben Stein is awesome. I'm so glad he is going to be showing the evidence of how evolution and eugenics go hand in hand. I hope that I will be able to see this when it comes out.

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 9:07 AM


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 9:08 AM


"Is the film about discrediting evolution or discrediting institutions who kick out people who disagree with evolution?"

I'm not sure, but I hope it is about the latter. I hope this movie is about academic freedom rather than trying to push a scientific theory one way or another. I would support this movie if that is what it is about, just like I would support it if it was the opposite i.e. if ID people in Universities were trying to silence Darwinian evolutionists. I'm all about, what I hope is, the academic freedom angle.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 10, 2008 9:09 AM


I read the Scientific American review just yesterday. I also read the Fox News review that completely trashed the film. I think it was called "Win Ben Stein's Career"....

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 10, 2008 9:10 AM


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-shermer

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 9:11 AM


Bobby, you should read the SciAm article that PIP linked to. It addresses the academic freedom issue pretty well, I think.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 10, 2008 9:11 AM


"Academic freedom" doesn't mean you have to accept bad science.

anyway I'm off to class, I"ll come back to lurk later.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 9:12 AM


OOops, sorry for not being specific Bobby. I mean the Michael Shermer review.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 10, 2008 9:12 AM


"Academic freedom" doesn't mean you have to accept bad science.

Then obviously kids shouldn't have to accept darwinism in order to have academic freedom.

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 9:15 AM


"Bobby, you should read the SciAm article that PIP linked to. It addresses the academic freedom issue pretty well, I think."

Okay, although I am a bit skeptical of Michael Shermer...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 10, 2008 9:19 AM


Okay, although I am a bit skeptical of Michael Shermer...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 10, 2008 9:19 AM

That cracked me up Bobby! Nicely played.

Talk to ya later.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 10, 2008 9:24 AM


Hehe. Well, I mean, it is true. He's the editor for Skeptics Magazine or something like that? I'm sure he's a top notch scientist like Dawkins, but I do show caution when they start discussing non-scientific ideas.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 10, 2008 9:27 AM


Scooooooooooooooooooooooore!

I got a 77 on my physics exam! My exam grades have improved on every test...a feat that has never happened before.

*dances*

Posted by: Rae at April 10, 2008 9:36 AM


Congratulations, Rae!!!

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 9:36 AM


Hehhehe. It must be recessive though, since my parents didn't manage to pass it on to me.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 10, 2008 8:55 AM

Exactly.

Those who get it, perpetuate it ( 10 kids ) and are "successful"

Those who don't get it ( 1 kid ) are less "successful"

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2008 9:39 AM


@Bethany: Thanks, and the funny thing is...I've skipped a *lot* of class lately (too tired...hate going) and this was the test with the highest grade, lol.

Posted by: Rae at April 10, 2008 9:42 AM


This is absolute baloney.There is absolutely
no conflict between Darwin and belief in God.
And the notion that Darwinism somehow
is a threat to students in school,and
something that will undermine public morality
is laughable.Even the Catholic church finds
nothing objectionable in Darwin.
But so many ignorant,narrow-minded and
intolerant people blindly accept the literal
interpretation of the Bible in America.
In general,atheists are not bad people at
all;on the contrary,many are highly ethical.
Why are so many Americans still stuck in
the dark ages?It's appalling.

Posted by: robert berger at April 10, 2008 10:16 AM


That is so terrific, Rae!

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 10:32 AM


Robert Berger, are you a believer in God?

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 10:32 AM


"@Bethany: Thanks, and the funny thing is...I've skipped a *lot* of class lately (too tired...hate going) and this was the test with the highest grade, lol."

Rae, I've often wondered... what does it mean when you put * * around a word like you did above in the word "lot"? Other people do this too. I'm just not hip to the kids these days...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 10, 2008 10:37 AM


I think it's another way to add emphasis,...like an alternative to using caps or the italics. :)

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 10:45 AM


Ah... that would save us the trouble of telling people that we aren't shouting at them.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 10, 2008 10:50 AM


"I think it's another way to add emphasis,...like an alternative to using caps or the italics. :)"

Precisely. :)

Posted by: Rae at April 10, 2008 11:06 AM


This is absolute baloney.There is absolutely
no conflict between Darwin and belief in God.
And the notion that Darwinism somehow
is a threat to students in school,and
something that will undermine public morality
is laughable.Even the Catholic church finds
nothing objectionable in Darwin.

But so many ignorant,narrow-minded and
intolerant people blindly accept the literal
interpretation of the Bible in America.

In general,atheists are not bad people at
all;on the contrary,many are highly ethical.

Why are so many Americans still stuck in
the dark ages?It's appalling.

Posted by: robert berger at April 10, 2008 10:16 AM

Who is the intolerant one here...?

Posted by: Janet at April 10, 2008 11:09 AM


Evolution can't be proven. But hey it's the only explanation that doesn't involve God so it must be true.

Posted by: tori at April 10, 2008 11:18 AM


Programming note:

Tomorrow Richard Dawkins guests on "Real Time with Bill Maher."

Ben Stein appears this week on "America's Top Model"

I wonder what the more evolved creatures will be watching this week...

Posted by: Laura at April 10, 2008 11:45 AM


Evolution can't be proven. But hey it's the only explanation that doesn't involve God so it must be true.

LOL exactly.


Ben Stein appears this week on "America's Top Model"

LOL that's a scary image!

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 12:06 PM


do you liberals expect me to believe that my ancestors were fish?

Posted by: jasper at April 10, 2008 12:08 PM


@Jasper: JLM asked me that very same question recently...whether our ancestors came from rocks (she was being facetious though) and I said, "Yup...as it would explain a LOT about my mother's side of the family.

Same goes for fish. :-p

Posted by: Rae at April 10, 2008 12:18 PM


"Then obviously kids shouldn't have to accept darwinism in order to have academic freedom."

You have never presented an accurate scientific argument against darwinism. You said yourself that your opposition was spiritual in nature and when I linked you to ample evidence you didn't address it.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 12:18 PM


"Evolution can't be proven."
In science nothing is.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 12:24 PM


You have never presented an accurate scientific argument against darwinism. You said yourself that your opposition was spiritual in nature and when I linked you to ample evidence you didn't address it.

I did address it. It's all based on assumptions. There is no proof of evolution, there are only assumptions of evolutionists who desperately want to disprove God.

Prove that we should have been born with vitamin c in our DNA. you acted as though the fact that if we don't ingest vitamin C we get scurvy, proves that there is something missing in our bodies, however you didn't even seem to give a thought to the idea that if we don't drink water we die...does that mean that we are missing something because we constantly have to ingest water to survive?

If I'm going to choose to believe something that's unproven scientifically, I choose to believe the one that God spoke.

The unproven theory that the scientists dish out, where my ancestors are mere animals, doesn't interest me in the least, and I would never want my children to be subjected to such a thought, that they were not actually created in God's image but in the image of an animal.

If you want to believe we descended from apes, and lizards, and amoebas, feel free. I choose to believe that God meant what He said, and that we are all created in His image, and have always been higher than the animals. That may make me a "speciesist" (one time I recall being called this lol), but that title is a badge of honor to me.

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 12:33 PM


"Evolution can't be proven."
In science nothing is.

Oh my goodness, are you actually saying this?

You can prove that the human embryo is biologically alive. You can prove that YOU are alive. You can prove if someone is dead. You can prove that there are molecules. You can prove that there are viruses. You can prove that there are good bacteria and bad bacteria. Oh my goodness, you can prove SO many things with science. How in the world can you possibly claim that you "cannot prove anything with science". What type of science do you subscribe to exactly?

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 12:43 PM


"It's all based on assumptions."

Bethany,

This is an interesting point you allude to. Maybe it's just because I'm infatuated with the guy, but I was listening to R.C. Sproul interview Ben Stein about the movie, and R.C. brought up the question as to what the epistemological basis that Darwinian evolutionists have. If there is any problem with Darwinian evolution, I think it would have to be there, because the scientists who study it like Dawkins are top notch at science, but not philosophy.

As I hope both you and PIP know, I try not to take a position on this question either way because I know so little. I trust scientists when they do science, but the question about their epistemology is very interesting. If that is incorrect, it throws everything else off. Unfortunately, I barely know any epistemology, so I can't even begin to think about what the correct one should be. Something interesting to ponder.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 10, 2008 1:04 PM


The use of the term "Darwinist" in the ID controversy is a giant red flag. The person using that term usually either doesn't understand that modern evolutionary science has progressed far beyond Darwin, or is trying to paint people who accept evolution as cult-like followers of a single person.

It kind of makes me want to start referring to all people who believe the earth is spherical as Pythagoreans.

Posted by: Jen R at April 10, 2008 1:50 PM


It's really depressing to read all this.

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW EVOLUTION WORKS YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE IT.

And... science does not attempt to make statements about how we should live our lives. It is people who take their misunderstandings of science and use it to push their radically ridiculous ideas.

Evolution does not disprove the existence of God, it simply disproves the Bible as a science textbook. Get over it. The people who wrote that book didn't know anything about science.

Posted by: Edyt at April 10, 2008 1:51 PM


That is very interesting, Bobby. And I forgot that you like R.C. Sproul. (I remember now because of our conversation on the weekend thread and your faux name had R.C. in it lol!) I really like him too!

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 1:52 PM


Evolution does not disprove the existence of God, it simply disproves the Bible as a science textbook. Get over it. The people who wrote that book didn't know anything about science.

Of course it doesn't disprove God. But it seeks to try!

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 1:53 PM


Bobby, I am going to go listen to that interview you spoke about right now. :)
Thanks for the heads up ;)

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 1:57 PM


Oh cool! Do you usually listen to "Renewing Your Mind"?

BTW, RC's book "The Holiness of God" is probably in my top 5favorite books. So amazing! It gives such a new understanding of how awesome God is.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 10, 2008 2:13 PM


no, I haven't ever listened to it...I know I have read articles by R.C. Sproul that I have enjoyed thoroughly though, and have watched at least one video with him being interviewed. I'll have to check into that book you're talking about! :)

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 2:25 PM


Oh cool, that book is available to read online for free! :)

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 2:25 PM


Bethany, the study of evolution does not seek to do anything more than explain how we developed over time. It does not explain why the Earth is here, or why there is life on Earth, or how big the universe is, or if there is some giant being staring at us while we shower...

Posted by: Edyt at April 10, 2008 2:39 PM


Edyt: the study of evolution does not seek to do anything more than explain how we developed over time. It does not explain why the Earth is here, or why there is life on Earth, or how big the universe is, or if there is some giant being staring at us while we shower...

So is that why we have atheists? Just in case?

(Sorry, couldn't help myself...)


Posted by: Janet at April 10, 2008 3:00 PM


Bethany, the study of evolution does not seek to do anything more than explain how we developed over time. It does not explain why the Earth is here, or why there is life on Earth, or how big the universe is, or if there is some giant being staring at us while we shower...

Neither does Intelligent Design. It simply says that organisms are so complex they must have been designed by some being. Why not follow the evidence where it leads naturally? I have never been able to look into my children's eyes without knowing that they are way too complex to have developed randomly over time. I have never been able to look at nature, really study it, without noticing how unbelievably intricate and complex each little part is. And when I was a child and I would play with a microscope I received at Christmas, I would marvel in amazement at the complexity I was unable to see with my naked eye!

It is too complicated for me to simply pass it off as random chance. Even if I didn't believe in the Bible, I would believe in Intelligent design.

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 3:06 PM


Well, a lot of people don't have a very deep understanding of science, which is why the complexity seems so astounding, I guess. I've heard my mother say the same thing.

While I think it is amazing how the world works and all that, and I don't believe I know very much about it at all, I just can't bring myself to believe in some greater power making it work.

And that is what ID attempts to do -- it's just trying to keep God in science. I don't think science should have to conform to the existence or nonexistence of any unconfirmed beings.

Posted by: Edyt at April 10, 2008 3:33 PM


Edyt, even people who have a very deep understanding of science can be amazed by how the world works, and are! I think that the deeper you delve, the more "layers " of complexity you'll find. There are so many things that Scientists have only touched the tip of the iceburg on. For example, the brain. There is still no one who REALLY understand how the brain works. Why is the idea of an intelligent creator threatening to you? In Intelligent design, no one is forcing you to believe that this being who created the world is a specific being. No one is forcing you to believe that this being is your ruler or has any rules for you. The fact is, Intelligent design basically says, "the world is too complex to have come about by random chance...we aren't going to be specific about WHO the creator is, but we are strongly convinced that there IS a creator".

There have been many theists who did not believe in the God of the Bible, and who did not expect people to live by the creators rule. They simply recognized that there must be a higher being.

Is this really so hard for you to allow us the chance to believe in this, and have the right to accept it just as you accept evolution?

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 3:54 PM


I don't think the idea of an all-powerful being is threatening. (It's the followers that are threatening!) Frankly, I think it's silly, but I don't usually say that because I prefer to be respectful of people who do believe such things. I've gone through many phases of religion and non-religion, and I'm sure there were times I could have been called a theist, deist, and agnostic. But... I got tired of coming up with reasons to believe in God.

However, I have not once said you should not believe in a higher power. I have said that your belief in one should not affect the way science is conducted, that's all.

Posted by: Edyt at April 10, 2008 4:03 PM


"I did address it. It's all based on assumptions."
The facts clearly supported the theoretical basis. You basically said, "well how do they KNOW God did it without evolution?" What business does creationism have accusing evolutionary theory of being based on assumptions? You guys simply go, "well that's complex. I guess a poof into existence is the only way it could have happened." And then when evolutionary biology starts uncovering what happened IDers go "lalalala not listening!"

But there in lies the main reason ID is science. There is no way to falsify. You guys just go around in circles going "well maybe God just made it deceptively look like evolution happened." And you can't falsify an invisible deity.

"There is no proof of evolution, there are only assumptions of evolutionists who desperately want to disprove God."

Now that's just ignorance.

"Prove that we should have been born with vitamin c in our DNA. you acted as though the fact that if we don't ingest vitamin C we get scurvy, proves that there is something missing in our bodies, however you didn't even seem to give a thought to the idea that if we don't drink water we die...does that mean that we are missing something because we constantly have to ingest water to survive?"

Did you not seriously watch the movie? It actually compares genetic sequences between species, and the genetic basis for vitamin C synthesis.
By the way, we need water because that is where it all started.

Oh, and also, you never addressed the videos I linked that were near the bottom of the list, the ones that play-by-play took creationist videos and ripped them apart.

"If I'm going to choose to believe something that's unproven scientifically, I choose to believe the one that God spoke."

God didn't say anything about molecules, and we can't see them; I guess they don't exist.

"The unproven theory that the scientists dish out"

Why do you believe in gravitational theory? Evolution is much more established that that.

"where my ancestors are mere animals, doesn't interest me in the least"
Then why be so opposed to it?

"and I would never want my children to be subjected to such a thought, that they were not actually created in God's image but in the image of an animal."

So God is an old man with a white beard sitting in the sky?

"If you want to believe we descended from apes, and lizards, and amoebas, feel free."

'Kay.

"I choose to believe that God meant what He said, and that we are all created in His image, and have always been higher than the animals. That may make me a "speciesist" (one time I recall being called this lol), but that title is a badge of honor to me."

Darwin addressed that we are different than other animals, right? But you took it to mean he was a racist.

"Oh my goodness, are you actually saying this?"

Yup. Biology 101. Nothing is ever "proven." It must be able to be falsified. And there are many things that are. If they are not, they are accepted (for the time being).

"How in the world can you possibly claim that you "cannot prove anything with science". What type of science do you subscribe to exactly?

Real science.

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/behavior/e&be_notes/E&BE_04_Sci_Meth&Philo.pdf

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 4:29 PM


*ID *isn't* science.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 4:30 PM


Now that's just ignorance.

*ID *isn't* science.

[I believe in]Real science.

So God is an old man with a white beard sitting in the sky?

God didn't say anything about molecules, and we can't see them; I guess they don't exist.

Oh I'm sorry. I must bow to your superior knowledge, PIP. Of course..

Twisting my words to mean things they don't, and insulting me is not debate, by the way. When you want to actually debate, let me know.

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 4:56 PM


It is too complicated for me to simply pass it off as random chance. Even if I didn't believe in the Bible, I would believe in Intelligent design.

Believing does not make it so. The veracity of scientific theories (among them the theory of gravity) is tested when they make predictions, and observations are made to determine whether they predicted accurately or not.

Time after time as technology has advanced since Darwin's time, new discoveries in the fossil record and in genetics have only verified and expanded upon his theory.

"Intelligent Design" by contrast, isn't much of a theory, because it doesn't propose anything that can be tested. Every time its proponents have dipped their toes into the waters of peer-reviewed science, they have been laughed out of the pool because they don't bring anything scientific with them. They point to complex mechanisms in nature, saying that this couldn't possibly have developed by chance, but they offer no evidence of this, nor any of how some "intelligent designer" might have caused said mechanism to come into being. Meanwhile, the rest of the scientific community learns new information almost daily that further reinforces the theory of evolution and negates the ID proponents' creationists' feeble attempts to discredit it.

Science isn't about believing, it's about evidence. Come back when you have some, but until then, stop trying to pretend that creationism is science and then whining when the scientific community won't let you get away with it.

Posted by: Ray at April 10, 2008 4:59 PM


Now that's just ignorance.

*ID *isn't* science.

[I believe in]Real science.

So God is an old man with a white beard sitting in the sky?

God didn't say anything about molecules, and we can't see them; I guess they don't exist.

Oh I'm sorry. I must bow to your superior knowledge, PIP. Of course..

Twisting my words to mean things they don't, and insulting me is not debate, by the way. When you want to actually debate, let me know.

Please tell me how I'm insulting you.

Telling me that evolution is just a made up thing to deny God is kind of insulting to me because I have been going above and beyond to tell you how they are reconcilable, that many scientists are also believers (many Catholics), and that science in general has nothing at all to say about God. You ignore this on purpose.
Willfully ignoring this when I have told you many times is being literally ignorant.

The second one--I was correcting a statement I said earlier. The * means that there was something that needed correcting.

You asked what kind of science *I* believed in, and I'm just telling you that this is the accepted thought. It really is true that nothing is proven in science. In REALITY nothing is proven in SCIENCE. Proof is something reserved for things like math. Beware of ANY scientist proposing proof. He is not proposing real science.


If we are made in God's image, and you don't accept that to mean the very spiritual fabric of our being is connected, what does it mean? You are suggesting a physical 'image'--which would make God a person, often depicted with a white beard and a sometimes angry expression on his face. If you are insulted by this depiction, feel free to explain it to me. Because, regardless of whether there is a white beard, you are proposing that God looks like a human physically.

Lastly, you did openly take my arguments out of context, and most of the creationists here love to do this too, and construct strawmen out of what has tried to be an honest explanation, so why would a statement that seeks to tell you how unapplicable one of your assertions is be a complete insult? If something is not provable (nothing is, but lets assume you mean directly unobservable) then you believe what the Bible says, how would you approach anything else in science? Most of that is not in the Bible. You would accept them, no doubt, and you know it.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 5:21 PM


"Proof is something reserved for things like math. "

woo hoo!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 10, 2008 5:27 PM


Hehhehe. It must be recessive though, since my parents didn't manage to pass it on to me.

You're not dead yet!

Posted by: mk at April 10, 2008 6:07 PM


You're not dead yet!

Posted by: mk at April 10, 2008 6:07 PM

Hah! My mom & dad say something similar every Sunday when they call to find out if I suddenly started going to church.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 10, 2008 6:17 PM


Hehe. Well, I mean, it is true. He's the editor for Skeptics Magazine or something like that? I'm sure he's a top notch scientist like Dawkins, but I do show caution when they start discussing non-scientific ideas.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 10, 2008 9:27 AM

That's why I thought it was funny, because of the play on words about Skeptics Magazine, and you being skeptical of Shermer!

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 10, 2008 6:18 PM


Bobby 9:27 Hehe. Well, I mean, it is true. He's the editor for Skeptics Magazine or something like that? I'm sure he's a top notch scientist like Dawkins, but I do show caution when they start discussing non-scientific ideas.

Bobby, You should run for office, you're so diplomatic.

Posted by: Janet at April 10, 2008 7:33 PM


Yeah, I"m kind of a coward like that...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 10, 2008 7:39 PM


PIP:

You often contradict yourself and it makes you look foolish:

I.e, in a previous post on another thred you said that evolution was a fact which implies that it can be proven. The truth is that it is not fact and can't be proven. Even the author that you recommended admits such.

Secondy, on this thread you said that nothing in science can be proven. Really?

I can't prove that F = ma? Heck, my 11 year old just won a science fair project using that formula and proved it using a marble, a ramp, a protractor and a stopwatch.

Mr. Barger:

By your comment you are implying that everyone who takes the Bible literally is a knuckle dragging Neanderthal. Having the arrogance to even make this statement reveals much about your true character and total lack of understanding about things of God. First of all, the conclusion requires audacious arrogance and to speak it in public tells me you have no qualms about exposing such arrogance in public.

Let me ask you this, exactly what portions of the Bible are we not to take literally? The anecdotal parts, the metaphorical parts or just the parts regarding its historicity?

Posted by: HisMan at April 10, 2008 7:57 PM


God loves the English.

Posted by: Edyt at April 10, 2008 8:15 PM


"I.e, in a previous post on another thred you said that evolution was a fact which implies that it can be proven."

From wikipedia: In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.


"The truth is that it is not fact and can't be proven. Even the author that you recommended admits such."

Evolution has been observed. It is a fact. Of course, evolution is also a theory to explain this fact.
In science nothing can be proven; therefore no theory or hypothesis can be said to be proven. Nothing is. Check out that link I sent Bethany, they are lecture notes but do a good job explaining scientific methodology.

"Secondy, on this thread you said that nothing in science can be proven. Really?"

Really. Read that link.

In general you are using common vernacular to define the word "proof." In science we say something is verified. It is "falsifiable" or can be showed to be false. But we never know for certain that our hypothesis is true. There is always a chance we are wrong. We can't lay out a written proof like in math. In physics there is a lot of math, and that is where you will find more "proof"(s) than say in biology.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 9:01 PM


Here's another paragraph from the same article:

Apart from the fundamental inquiry in to the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method.[27] Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent from the observer in that no matter which scientist observes a phenomenon, all will reach the same necessary conclusion.[28] In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote factual accuracy (among other interests) in scientific study.[29]
Fact does not always mean the same thing as truth. Fact is a generally agreed-upon and seemingly obvious observation. It is a fact that things stick to the earth, without regard to why that happens. It was once a fact that the planets changed direction from time to time, and that the sun, planets and stars circled the earth once daily. This seemed obvious, and was generally agreed to be the case.
In time, the fact was changed, and it was then said that the earth circles the sun, and the planets only appear to change direction as they are passed by the earth in their orbits, or vice versa.
Misunderstanding of this difference sometimes leads to fallacy in rhetoric, in which persons will say that they have fact, while others have only theory. Such statements indicate confusion as to the meanings of both words, suggesting they believe that fact means "truth," and theory means "speculation."

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 9:16 PM


PIP:

Start using your brain and not the cut and paste feature on your keyboard, please.

Posted by: HisMan at April 10, 2008 9:23 PM


Let me ask you this, exactly what portions of the Bible are we not to take literally? The anecdotal parts, the metaphorical parts or just the parts regarding its historicity?

How do you define literally, Hisman? Given the fact that the bible has been translated, edited, and recopied multiple times throughout the centuries, frequently by people imposing their own agenda on it, I would venture to say that the whole thing should not be taken literally.

Posted by: Ray at April 10, 2008 9:23 PM


I'm not interested in discussing it with you anymore, PIP. I'm sorry. I don't think you're interested in sincerely discussing it.

It appears to me that you're more interested in trying to show people how "smart" you are (because you take "evolution classes"?), rather than actually trying to understand my perspective and show me yours, in sincerity.

Till then...

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 9:44 PM


HisMan,

What would it matter if I copied and pasted a definition or not? Never knew we could make a new definition up out of thin air.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 9:44 PM


Bethany,

That's your decision. I just don't know what I did to upset you so much, I was just challenging your statements. If I hurt your feelings some how, accept my apologies. I wish you would at least answer my questions though.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 9:56 PM


"IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW EVOLUTION WORKS YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE IT."

Please tell me how I was more offensive than this.

This is an honest question. Maybe my typed words came out more cross than I meant to be...?

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 10:00 PM


...or this:

Start using your brain and not the cut and paste feature on your keyboard, please.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 10:02 PM


Ray:

Excuse me? There are numerous translations of the Bible. All of them I can guarantee you were made from as close to the original texts as is possible. The scholars that assembled the Bible were people that were keenly aware of the responsibilties placed in their hands. No God-fearing person would dare tamper with God's word.

I have over 30 versions of the Bible on my smartphone in English, Italian, Arabic, Chinese and Spanish. Further I have a Greek lexicon that I can use that will instantaneously provide me the NT original word in Greek. When I come across my apparent misundertanding I always read different versions to get a sense of the passage. If necessary I go to the lexicon.

I hate to say this, but your thinking is based on cliche. It's typical of one not willing to study the word for themselves and in doing so discover the beautiful, majestic, wonderful, merciful and loving God that wants nothing more than to have a relationship with you. It's all typical of the same type of thinking of ordinary people that believe that evolution is fact. IT IS NOT FACT. "Like sheep led to slaughter".

Want to know what all these versions and translations of the Bible say?

"Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so"

Now, in the end of things, our eternal destinies hinge on what we do with that assertion.

The Bible is such a magnificent book and God DESIGNED it such that a small child could understand it or an intellectual with an open mind and fearless heart could search it for his whole life and never find all the truths layered and woven into it, never satisfied that he figured out God. You see, God will do whatever He can to convince you of His love for you apart from forcing Himself on you. Ultimately, if the cross can't do that, nothing can, and to reject it is unforgivable.

Why, becasue the Bible is the infinite mind of God revealed to mankind and until you at least start to try to understand it do you realize what an other-worldy work it is, indescribable and beyond words.

I had a client who was doing his doctoral disssertation in astrononmy. In a car ride to the building he was purchasing we started to talk about his field. I asked him what was one of the major discoveries since he became a student of the stars. He said, we have been able to "see" out to the most distant parts of the galaxy and have not found God. I asked him if he believed in God and he said no. I then said, God says in his word that, "if you seek Me with all your heart you will find me". I told him that if you presuppose that you can find God by first assuming He doesn't exist, then you're findings are exactly right because He guarantees that you won't find Him until you at least first believe that He is.

This is the Achilles heel of science and the scientists that foolishly worship at its feet. Science requires proof that something is or isn't based on repeatable observation.

Well, science is not a god, it is not to be worshipped or idolized or made a basis for constructing how one lives. To do so is monumentally stupid and well, unscientific.

"Faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is love", St, Paul the Apostle.

Posted by: HisMan at April 10, 2008 10:34 PM


HisMan,

how's the reading going?

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 10:57 PM


Hisman,

It's all typical of the same type of thinking of ordinary people that believe that evolution is fact. IT IS NOT FACT.

Have you been reading this thread? It has already been posited that facts change. It was once accepted as fact that the stars and planets revolved around the sun and changed direction in their movement. The word fact isn't generally used in science, which deals in observations.

Evolution is a theory, much like the theory of gravitation. Based on an continually accumulating mountain of evidence, and the lack of a differing theory that fits that evidence, it is overwhelmingly accepted as true by the scientific community. How is this in any way controversial?

Well, science is not a god, it is not to be worshipped or idolized or made a basis for constructing how one lives.

Nor is God science, nor in any way scientific. Just as we ought not to worship science, God does not belong in a science classroom.

The ironic thing about this debate, for me, is that I believe in God the creator, but I believe that he(it) is far more awesome than some gray bearded old guy floating in heaven, engrossed in the soap opera of humanity. I believe that God created the universe, the very laws of physics that make water a liquid and unbound oxygen and hydrogen gases between 0 and 100 degrees celsius, and threw out a bunch of matter, like splashing a can of paint toward a canvas, intent to see what would happen. To suggest that he(it) nudged things along evolutionarily, or created complex animals from scratch, is to trivialize just how mysterious and awesome creation is.

You may think what I believe is poppycock, but without evidence, what I believe is equally valid to the biblical creation myth, the Flying Spaghetti Monster creation myth, the Hindu creation myth, the Blackfoot creation myth, etc. They are all beliefs, nothing more.

This is the Achilles heel of science and the scientists that foolishly worship at its feet. Science requires proof that something is or isn't based on repeatable observation.

How is this an Achilles heel? Proof based on repeatable observation is what builds suspension bridges, makes airplanes fly, and puts men on the moon. Science has nothing to do with religion. To look for God through a telescope is ludicrous...any astronomer would tell you that.

The problem here is creationists who want to put God in the science classroom, not scientists who want to put science in church!

Posted by: Ray at April 10, 2008 11:17 PM


No Ray:

"Nor is God science", correct answer, He just created it.

"To look for God through a telescope is ludicrous...any astronomer would tell you that."
Who said anything about a telescope? Ever heard of radio waves? Ever heard of cosmic rays? Ever heard of the Combined Array for Research in Millimeter-wave Astronomy (CARMA)? By the way I was one of the "scientists" on the Galileo project who was responsible for the design of the pointing system. Can you spell arc-second?

Faith builds bridges, makes airplance fly, etc., etc., etc. God created the intelligence, the steel, the aluminum, the fuel, the water, the air, even the people who need such devices. He even created gravity, for without it no bridge can stand nor plane fly.

God SPOKE the universe into existence and by the way that is how men turn ideas (create) into reality by believing and then speaking them into existence...figure it out. Do the words "in His image" help.

Oy, debating with a materialist is exhausting.

God created creationsists, created science and even the classrooms.

Colossians 1:16 "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him."

Colossians 1:17 "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

Hebrews 1:3 "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven."

Revelation 4:11 ""You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."

PIP: You know I love you like a daughter. My daughter constantly challenged me, however, this past visit home she said one thing that really blessed me, "Dad, thanks for bringing me up in the faith". This after almost a full year in a secular university realizing what a superior education and experience she received. She is light years ahead of her counterparts, not better than, just more fortunate than. I am still reading the book you recommended. It's a tedious read so please be patient with me. So far the major point that I have relearned is that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. I'm keeping an open mind. Now, when I skip ahead a few chapters I see he gets into the meat of the theory like discussing protein pumps, etc. That stuff I like. You are going to be an awesome and powerful woman of God whether it be a professor or biologist or whatever. Keep fighting for what you believe as truth; for truth requires no defender. You are a lot like me when I was your your age. My problem was that I didn't obey God as willingly as I should have. You're gonna be just fine.


Posted by: HisMan at April 11, 2008 1:11 AM



I had a client who was doing his doctoral disssertation in astrononmy. In a car ride to the building he was purchasing we started to talk about his field. I asked him what was one of the major discoveries since he became a student of the stars. He said, we have been able to "see" out to the most distant parts of the galaxy and have not found God. I asked him if he believed in God and he said no. I then said, God says in his word that, "if you seek Me with all your heart you will find me". I told him that if you presuppose that you can find God by first assuming He doesn't exist, then you're findings are exactly right because He guarantees that you won't find Him until you at least first believe that He is.

This is the Achilles heel of science and the scientists that foolishly worship at its feet. Science requires proof that something is or isn't based on repeatable observation.

Nice!

Posted by: Janet at April 11, 2008 2:28 AM


Edyt 8:15:

There are some amusing arguments here, but this is my favorite from your link:

Proof That God Exists:
57. ARGUMENT FROM CREATIVE INTERPRETATION

(1) God is:
????????(a) The feeling you have when you look at a newborn baby.
????????(b) The love of a mother for her child.
????????(c) That little still voice in your heart.
????????(d) Humankind's potential to overcome their difficulties.
????????(e) How I feel when I look at a sunset.
????????(f) The taste of ice cream on a hot day.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

More importantly, where's the list of "Proof That God Does NOT Exist"?


Posted by: Janet at April 11, 2008 2:36 AM


Bethany,
That's your decision. I just don't know what I did to upset you so much, I was just challenging your statements. If I hurt your feelings some how, accept my apologies. I wish you would at least answer my questions though.
Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 9:56 PM
"IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW EVOLUTION WORKS YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE IT."
Please tell me how I was more offensive than this.
This is an honest question. Maybe my typed words came out more cross than I meant to be...?
Posted by: prettyinpink at April 10, 2008 10:00 PM

I'll explain why Edyt's comments didn't bother me like yours did.

I expect comments like that, that are insulting faith in God's words, from an atheist. I would expect an atheist to make a mockery of those who believe in a literal Genesis account. Not from you.

If you'll notice, every other person on here who has argued in support of evolution is an atheist.

I don't generally bother with atheists much, because how am I going to convince someone who begins with a totally different premise than I do, to understand my position?

However, when I talk to someone like you, who is supposed to have the same *premise* (that God created the world, that God created us), I wouldn't expect that same type of mockery.

It isn't just the mocking. It is the arrogance as well. I feel that you think you are superior in intellect and knowledge than all else who are here and you constantly attempt to prove this in the way you express yourself.

You claim to understand intelligent design, and you ask for sources for evidence. I originally had posted several links which you did not respond to, which explained many different aspects of the evidence I have seen, and yet you either dismissed them or ignored them.

While I did not respond to each and every one of the multiple videos you posted, I at least did respond to some of them.

I have never said that the Bible is a "science manual", but at the same time, if God created the world and created science, do you really think that the Bible is going to contradict true science?

The idea that you would mock me by saying, "Well, molecules aren't mentioned in the Bible, so I guess they don't exist", explains clearly that you do not understand my argument, and probably never really will. I never said that everything in Science was in the Bible. I have, however, said that the Bible and true science cannot contradict because the author CREATED science and obviously isn't going to get anything wrong.

Would a person who truly believed in God and had the upmost faith in Him really make this comment:

"You guys just go around in circles going "well maybe God just made it deceptively look like evolution happened." And you can't falsify an invisible deity."

I honestly just have a hard time seeing your faith, PIP. You have plenty of faith in what your college professors tell you, but where is your faith in the Bible? How many hours do you spend studying about evolution, compared with how many hours you spend studying the Bible?

I would not ask the above question to an atheist.

I'll repeat Edyt's suggestion that you cannot criticize something that you do not understand fully. I do not think you've spent much time studying about intelligent design...I do think, however, you have studied much about the biased views of evolutionary professors who refute it.

That would be like me getting all my information abot pro-lifers from Planned Parenthood.

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 8:12 AM


@Bethany: I'm vaguely Catholic and I accept evolution to be a valid scientific theory.

My opinion is this: evolution is the "how" but God is the "why", if that makes sense...

However, it's not that big of a deal to me, where we came from. All that matters is that we're here now, not where we were at the dawn of time.

Posted by: Rae at April 11, 2008 8:21 AM


Bethany, I understand, and I'm sorry. I never meant to come across as arrogant.

When I addressed "you guys" I meant the movement, not really you specifically.

"The idea that you would mock me by saying, "Well, molecules aren't mentioned in the Bible, so I guess they don't exist", explains clearly that you do not understand my argument, and probably never really will. I never said that everything in Science was in the Bible. I have, however, said that the Bible and true science cannot contradict because the author CREATED science and obviously isn't going to get anything wrong."

I agree that they cannot contradict! This is trying to be what I'm saying. Science cannot study God himself because he cannot be falsified! (i.e. shown not to exist). However we can study his awesome creation, nature! In the Bible, you will notice that they do not explain the

Rae sorta sums up what I believe, that God is the why, and evolution is the how. Evolution doesn't seek to explain the 'why' but the 'how.' THAT is why science and religion don't contradict. n the Bible, you will notice that they do not explain 'how' God created us. It just says that he did. Again this is because the two components simply seek to answer different kinds of questions. They study two parts of the same world.

And I thought I did respond to the links? If I haven't let me know and re-link me.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 11, 2008 8:36 AM


whoops forgot to delete the first phrase *In the Bible...

I decided to mkove it but forgot to delete the original.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 11, 2008 8:42 AM


Way back when Jill first mentioned the movie, I watched the "long" trailer for it, about 7 minutes in length.

Didn't see much if anything against evolution, really just complaining about how some scientists have been treated.

And it may be that some people haven't been given a fair hearing, but Ben Stein didn't have anything meaningful to say about evolution, pro or con, that I saw, really.

Posted by: Doug at April 11, 2008 9:36 AM


"If somebody has evidence of intelligent design, I'd like to see it, and there may indeed have been unfair treatment of certain people, but while we don't know everything about evolution, that it operates really isn't in doubt."

Posted by: Doug at April 11, 2008 9:43 AM


It's all typical of the same type of thinking of ordinary people that believe that evolution is fact. IT IS NOT FACT.

Yes, it is fact. Same as for gravity. We don't know all there is to know about either, but we do know that both take place, are applicable to us, etc.

Posted by: Doug at April 11, 2008 9:45 AM


I did not say that Bible believers are
"knuckle-dragging neanderthals".
If people want to believe that the earth is
only 6,000 years old(1,000 years after the Sumerians invented glue),that is their right.
Conservatives cite the Bible to excuse in-
tolerance of gays.But they have no problem
eating shrimp and lobster etc,or pork,which the
Bible also calls abominations.Isn't this being rather selective.?The Bible can be used as an
excuse to justify or be against anything.
But most people don't want to be forced to
accept creationism.Schools have no business teaching it.Let those students make up their own
minds.

Posted by: robert berger at April 11, 2008 9:51 AM


I did not say that Bible believers are
"knuckle-dragging neanderthals".
If people want to believe that the earth is
only 6,000 years old(1,000 years after the Sumerians invented glue),that is their right.
Conservatives cite the Bible to excuse in-
tolerance of gays.But they have no problem
eating shrimp and lobster etc,or pork,which the
Bible also calls abominations.Isn't this being rather selective.?The Bible can be used as an
excuse to justify or be against anything.
But most people don't want to be forced to
accept creationism.Schools have no business teaching it.Let those students make up their own
minds.

Posted by: robert berger at April 11, 2008 9:52 AM


Thanks Rae for the explanation. PIP, I apologize for getting angry with you. I believe you mean well.

You say that the Bible doesn't explain the how, but this is where we differ. I believe the Bible goes into great detail explaining how the world began.

Because of this difference in our premise, we will most likely not be able to find any common ground in this area, since we have discussed it before and never did.

I just feel like it's probably going to be pointless to discuss it, as there is probably going to be no print at which we will come to agreement. (It's a discouraging feeling, which is why I don't want to really get into it.)

Nonetheless, I will try to at least answer some of your questions:

The facts clearly supported the theoretical basis. You basically said, "well how do they KNOW God did it without evolution?" What business does creationism have accusing evolutionary theory of being based on assumptions? You guys simply go, "well that's complex. I guess a poof into existence is the only way it could have happened." And then when evolutionary biology starts uncovering what happened IDers go "lalalala not listening!"

The point is, that we BOTH have presuppositions, and we BOTH rely on faith, to a certain extent, for our beliefs.

We may have evidence to support our views, but we find the evidence which supports our presuppositions. Your presupposition is that we evolved from apes. Therefore, the same evidence that I use as evidence of creation, you use as evidence for evolution, because we look at the evidence with different presuppositions.

But there in lies the main reason ID is science. There is no way to falsify. You guys just go around in circles going "well maybe God just made it deceptively look like evolution happened." And you can't falsify an invisible deity.

Why would intelligent design proponents make the argument that evolution happened at all? Or am I misreading what you're saying?
If you are saying that we are saying that God was deceptive and made it appear that we evolved from apes, I'd say you're wrong. Why would an intelligent design proponent make such a wild claim? God does not deceive.

I had written:
"There is no proof of evolution, there are only assumptions of evolutionists who desperately want to disprove God."

Now that's just ignorance.

Your not agreeing with it doesn't make it ignorance, PIP. I have seen evidence of SO many scientists trying to disprove God, and admittedly so, I don't even see how it is up for debate at all.

Did you not seriously watch the movie? It actually compares genetic sequences between species, and the genetic basis for vitamin C synthesis.
By the way, we need water because that is where it all started.

I don't agree. I think we were created out of the dust of the ground. And yes, I did watch the movie. It was full of assumption and presupposition and theory. Which I am not saying is a bad thing, until someone tries to say it is a fact and force everyone to believe it is factual science.

God didn't say anything about molecules, and we can't see them; I guess they don't exist.

As I stated before, that doesn't matter. The existence of molecules does not contradict the Word of God.

Why do you believe in gravitational theory? Evolution is much more established that that.

A miss is as good as a mile, PIP. Either something is established, or it's not. Saying, "More established" or "less established", is like saying that someone is "deader" or "less dead". It doesn't make sense. And established means respected and accepted. Just because something is respected and accepted doesn't make it true.

It was respected, and accepted that the earth was flat for many years. There were probably books written on the subject, and children were probably learning this when they were being educated.

The fact that it is respected or accepted does not mean that it is truth.

As for the theory of gravity, it's possible that it is wrong. Maybe instead of being pulled down, we are (like Phoebe on Friends says) "being pushed" down.

I don't put any absolute trust or faith in what scientists say today, because tomorrow it could be proven wrong. And by wrong, I mean flat out contradicted. Why would I put my faith in something so arbitrary? At least with the Bible, I know that it will never change. Yes, that in itself (it's never changing) doesn't prove it is true. But I never said that this was the only thing that made it true.
I have FAITH that it is, just as you have FAITH that evolution is true.

The only thing that I want you to concede to, is that evolution requires faith, just as believing in an intelligent creator requires faith.

Then why be so opposed to it?

I said it doesn't interest me to believe in it. However, it does interest me that others believe in it, and I am certainly opposed to it, and always will be.

So God is an old man with a white beard sitting in the sky?

I understand your point. No, God is a Spirit and does not have the form as we know it. However, God said that He created a MAN and a WOMAN (not some other form of life which later became a woman or man), and He said repeatedly, "And it was so." explaining that immediately there was a fulfillment to His commands.

Darwin addressed that we are different than other animals, right? But you took it to mean he was a racist.

Well, he did mention Austrailians and Africans, talking about their "clicks and whistles", saying that they were obviously lower on the scale of humanity because they were not civilized. He wasn't talking about other animals, he was talking about people who he considered to be less evolved.

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 10:11 AM


Robert Berger, here's a copy and paste answer for you:

Any analysis or evaluation of Genesis 1-11 will be determined according to one's presuppositions of God's existence. A perfect example of this is Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. In Letter, Harris writes: "[M]more than half the American population believes that the entire cosmos was created 6,000 years ago. This is, incidentally, about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue."

Look carefully at that quote. He is obviously arguing that it's impossible for the cosmos to be created after the Sumerians invent glue. Fair enough. Any rational person would go along with that. Game over then........right? Well.......not quite. The argument destroys fundamentalist Christianity or any literal understanding of Genesis only if Harris' premise (that the Sumerians did in fact invent glue 7,000 years ago) is correct.

The problem with dating events, societies, cultures, and people of ancient history is that it is not a precise science. For one thing, the calendars (to the extent that ancient societies even used them) were varied and flawed. So, we can't go back and establish when the Sumerians invented glue with the same degree of certainty that we can say Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. Dating ancient events, peoples, etc. requires estimating based on a modern template.

What about that modern template? Modern science's dating methods - from archaeology to earth science - depend on NATURALISTIC uniformatarianism. In other words, modern science estimates ancient artifacts according to assumptions that preclude, among other things, supernatural intervention. Should we necessarily fault science for this? Of course not. Science can't calculate the supernatural, and must work with what it has in front of it.

The problem emerges when science uses naturalistic assumptions to "PROVE" that the supernatural doesn't exist. You, the reader, may say: "Wait! Science doesn't do that. Science doesn't take a position on God." Well then, what about Sam Harris' cheap shot about the Sumerians and their glue? While honest, disciplined scientists may not take these types of shots, authors like Harris or even ordinary people do so all the time. They cite the findings of naturalistic science to try to disprove God.

You can't have it both ways. If science wants to stay neutral on God, then it must also stay neutral on the book of Genesis. A person who understands this and seeks to follow it with integrity will not cast aspersions on elements of the Judeo-Christian faith, unless they are verifiably wrong and grossly harmful to society.

The proper response of secular science to a Christian holding onto Genesis should be: Outside of God's intervention in the world, we estimate the earth to be roughly 4.5 billion years old. We understand that these calculations do not take into account the possibility of God's intervention, which would impact our calculations considerably."

Accordingly, a Christian can be smart, honest, and fair-minded and say: "Genesis is true if God is real and if Genesis accurately reflects God's revelation to the human race." Why? Because if God is real and He has intervened in the natural universe like the Bible claims He has, then modern science's naturalistic presuppositions and calculations would be thrown off. Specifically then, the Sumerians invented glue prior to when Genesis records God creating the universe only if the presuppositions and calculations of modern science are correct. We cannot know with certainty that this is the case.

Therefore, as a person looks at history for evidence for or evidence against God, the considerations outlined in this argument MUST be kept in mind. Much of how we understand and measure history depends on whether we are initially predisposed to believe in or reject the possibility of God -- whether we are open to the supernatural or fixated exclusively on the natural.

It's sad that more people can't approach Genesis with this understanding. The book of Genesis may, in fact, be true. Modern science cannot say with certainty whether it is or isn't. And neither can Sam Harris. If more people accepted this, there would be a lot less yelling and a lot more harmony and understanding.

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 10:16 AM


Since atheism existed long before Darwin was ever born that was a ignorant assertion.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 11, 2008 11:10 AM


The book of Genesis may, in fact, be true. Modern science cannot say with certainty whether it is or isn't.
************************
Bethany, the story of the garden of eden is a myth. Trying to pretend the world was created in 7 days and is only a few thousands of years old. is ridiculous. Whimpering that science cant 'prove' it 'didnt happen' is ridiculous.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 11, 2008 11:12 AM


Bethany, the story of the garden of eden is a myth. Trying to pretend the world was created in 7 days and is only a few thousands of years old. is ridiculous. Whimpering that science cant 'prove' it 'didnt happen' is ridiculous.

Don't be silly, Texasred. The world was created in 6 days. On the 7th day, God rested. :)

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 11:26 AM


Since atheism existed long before Darwin was ever born that was a ignorant assertion.

I'm not really sure what your point was here. Did I or someone else say that atheism did not exist before Darwin?

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 11:30 AM


And by the way, TexasRed, it's okay if you feel Creationism OR Intelligent Design are myth. (I think evolution is a myth too.)

What you and other atheists choose to believe by faith is your business.

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 11:39 AM


@Bethany: Are you available to chat on MSN today?

Posted by: Rae at April 11, 2008 11:51 AM


Hey Rae, I may be able to chat in a couple of hours. I'm actually just getting off for lunch. Will you be online for a while?

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 12:01 PM


If that's too long, I can try to get online again earlier. just let me know.

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 12:01 PM


@Bethany: I'll be around till about 1:30, then I have to go to the doctor, but I'll be back about 3:30. :)

Posted by: Rae at April 11, 2008 12:06 PM


Is that central time? I'll check back in a couple of hours...if you're not here, I'll check again in another hour. It's 12:08 here right now.

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 12:08 PM


It's 12:13 PM here now. :)

(Alabama and Minnesota are both in CST).

Posted by: Rae at April 11, 2008 12:13 PM


Oh hey, I just needed to pop back on to tell you that if I don't come back on, we are having tornado warnings - again - and may have to go to the storm shelter.
Hope to be able to talk later though!

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 12:15 PM


I don't generally bother with atheists much, because how am I going to convince someone who begins with a totally different premise than I do, to understand my position?

That's ridiculous. Most atheists were raised in religious households and know just as much as any other religious person.

I can totally see where you're coming from because I lived it, believed it, went to church and read the Bible and spoke with people about it. You cannot see where I'm coming from because that would take letting go of your beliefs for a second to see the other side.

The thing is, you can't convert atheists (for the most part) because most of them have already seen both sides and now they're happily on the other side.

Posted by: Edyt at April 11, 2008 1:24 PM


Edyt:Most atheists were raised in religious households and know just as much as any other religious person.

I beg to differ. There is a difference between knowing your religion and truly understanding it. It's the misunderstanding, in my opinion that leads people astray...to atheism.

Posted by: Janet at April 11, 2008 1:48 PM


Janet: What's the difference?

Posted by: Edyt at April 11, 2008 1:53 PM


Bethany,

thanks for those answers. I would love nothing more than reply to you but will respect your wishes on the matter. I'm trying to get off of this "I want the last word" kind of habit.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 11, 2008 2:09 PM


Rae: I'm sorry, I just got out of the storm shelter and we might have to go back soon. Not really sure.

Aww PIP, I feel bad now. I promise I was not trying to make you do that. The fact that you are willing to do it really shows me that you are sincere, and I'm sorry for having misjudged you (just needed to say that again).

You are more than welcome to keep going with the conversation. I think I was just venting a little bit of my frustration (to explain, I'm kind of afraid this could turn into another "weekend thread" sort of thing, because I can see the topic going on and on and on, and looking ahead it seems overwhelming, just thinking about it.)

If we can go at it slow, and not touch too many topics at once, it would be great. Also, I just have to let you know beforehand, I am not familiar with a lot of the big scientific terms you use, which is yet another reason that I shy away from these conversations. If you can try to use laymens terms or explain things a bit more, that would help.

I don't know if I have the time to be able to argue long threads back and forth, but I can do my best little bit at a time.

Anyway, gotta go make some coffee. My father in law, the kids, and I were all out in that storm pit for the last hour and a half and I'm ready to lay down and relax!

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 3:55 PM


@Bethany: Oh don't worry! I've been pretty busy this afternoon. Stay safe!

Posted by: Rae at April 11, 2008 4:20 PM


Yay! I think the storms have passed. :) Finally!!

Edyt:
That's ridiculous. Most atheists were raised in religious households and know just as much as any other religious person.
I can totally see where you're coming from because I lived it, believed it, went to church and read the Bible and spoke with people about it. You cannot see where I'm coming from because that would take letting go of your beliefs for a second to see the other side.
The thing is, you can't convert atheists (for the most part) because most of them have already seen both sides and now they're happily on the other side.

Edyt, I understand what you're saying, but intellectual knowledge of any or all aspects of Christianity is not quite the same as having been a Christian.

Think about this. I know you probably do not believe in the devil anymore, but for the sake of my argument:

The devil has intellectual knowledge of what Christianity is. The devil even fears and respects God so much that he trembles at His name. The devil literally fears God.

I'm pretty sure that satan knows every detail of the plan of salvation, and every aspect of every religion on this earth.

That does not mean that the devil is a Christian, or ever has been. The devil has never actually experienced God's saving grace through Jesus Christ, and the devil never will experience that.

The same can apply to anyone in the world. You can know every word of the Bible by heart, and you can still not be a Christian. You can go to church every Sunday, have lots of friends who go to church as well, you can homeschool your kids and teach them about God, and still not be a Christian.

My point here is that just because you think you have understood what it is to be a Christian, it really doesn't mean you do.

I think that if you had truly been a Christian, who had been born again and experienced Christ's redemption, you could not possibly have turned back and rejected Christ.

If you are happy in your way of life today, that is good, and I am not trying to force you to think or feel differently.

I certainly do hope that one day you will have a change of heart, but I believe that you can't do it on your own. You can't come to God unless He draws you. I can pray for you, and hope that soon His Spirit will draw you. But other than that, you will not find me trying to force my views on you. I don't think you can force anyone to be a Christian.

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 5:03 PM


Janet 1:48, I see you made the same point! :D

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 6:48 PM


Edyt, I understand what you're saying, but intellectual knowledge of any or all aspects of Christianity is not quite the same as having been a Christian.

Well, I was a Christian. A breathing, practicing, praying Christian. When my parents stopped going to church, I continued. (They have a sort of home church now.) And I know several atheists who were quite devout Christians, even more than I was!

I think that if you had truly been a Christian, who had been born again and experienced Christ's redemption, you could not possibly have turned back and rejected Christ.

I know what it's like to get caught up in the feeling. Really, I do. It's not a matter of me "rejecting" Christ. I don't hate God. I'm not purposefully disbelieving in him because I want to go to hell or because I'm angry for some reason.

I grew up in an environment that was half-Muslim and half-Christian. And I had to ask myself... who is right? What makes me right for being a Christian? They were JUST as devout as any Christian I knew, just as faithful, just as sure they had the one true faith that would bring them to heaven.

Thing is, I couldn't bring myself to believe Christians OR Muslims were on the right path, because I figured if there was a God, and if he really was as loving as it said in the Bible (which is contradictory, but I believed the whole "God is love" phrase more than the angry "kill your neighbors" God), then he couldn't possibly allow Muslims to go to hell, or Christians to go to hell, since they were both such deep believers.

Of course, later I realized religion is a by-product of where you grow up... chances are if any of you had been born in Iran you would be Muslim today.

So anyway, long story short... everything I had been taught about God dissolved in the face of reality and upon further questioning I came to the conclusion that there's no good reason to believe in fantasy and became an atheist.

But if you would rather believe I've been possessed by your devil and whatever, feel free.

Posted by: Edyt at April 11, 2008 6:59 PM


Edyt, where did you get the idea that I think you're possessed? When I was talking about the devil, I was using an analogy to help you see that no matter how much intellectual knowledge you have of God and Jesus, that isn't enough for salvation.

I believe that you prayed faithfully. That you believed that you were a Christian, and that you went to church, and all of those things you said. I believe you!

That still makes no difference, because you can actually worship Christ in vain.

If your conversion is not of the heart, God knows this. (and you can even believe you have converted without having done so)
This is what I'm trying to say.

Now, my intent here is not to convert you, but to explain to you that you are wrong about your assumptions about why I do not like discussing evolution with atheists. That's all.

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 7:40 PM


Bethany, you responded to my post to Janet, which was not about evolution.

She made the assertion that I could not understand her beliefs and she could not understand mine. I asserted that I can, indeed, understand her position because I was in that position and could not imagine a world without God.

Now I live in that world and can see both sides.

You also stated that you did not believe I had been a Christian because I had turned away.

Look at it this way:

Imagine I had been born in France. I was happily French for a long time, then I traveled to Spain and gave up my French citizenship for Spanish citizenship.

Can you say I'm not qualified to speak on matters of France because I am no longer a French citizen?

Posted by: Edyt at April 11, 2008 8:19 PM


Edyt:

I've been away most of the day, so I wanted to clarify a few things. Was your Christian parent Catholic or Protestant? You may or may not know I am Catholic; which is a very different world view from Protestantism, and within Protestantism itself, there are many differences, so it's hard to make generalizations based on the term "Christianity"...

The point I was making earlier was that often times a "Cradle" Catholic who later leaves the faith does so because he never really understood the intricacies of his faith in the first place. (He may have been "going through the motions") It's not an easy faith to learn, there is the bible, the oral tradition and teachings of the Magisterium (the teaching authority including the Pope) which all together comprise the faith.

Then there are some Protestants who believe the bible is the only source of the Truth about their faith, and "once saved" they cannot be separated from God.

Posted by: Janet at April 11, 2008 11:32 PM


Ahhh, I see what you mean. No, I come from a non-denomenational protestant faith. I just get insulted when people try to tell me I don't understand religion, since I was homeschooled I feel like I was completely immersed in it for most of my upbringing.

Posted by: Edyt at April 12, 2008 12:39 PM