On May 10, 1:21 pm, Ken McElhaney <mcelha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 9, 11:43 pm, TNW <TNW7z7z7z12...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > I've been waiting to see a review of "Expelled" from a scientist who
> > believes in God. The Boston Globe had one this week.
>
> > For anyone who might be interested:
>
> > "Trouble Ahead for Science" by Kenneth R. Miller
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/4c3k9o
>
> First, go see the movie and judge for yourself.
>
> Second, the article you cite gets the ENTIRE point of the film WRONG.
> It does not promote "I.D." as the "superior" theory, the film points
> out the huge hole in Darwinian theory when it comes to the formation
> of the first living cell. That scientists are so defensive on this
> point that they will not allow ANY serious discussion of ANY other
> theory. And those that even mention it in "scientific papers" are
> attacked. Is this true in all cases? Probably not, but it has happened
> to more than one scientist. Enough to make a "propaganda" film about
> it I suppose. Given how Michael Moore's past three propaganda pieces
> are such trash, "Expelled" at least doesn't require complete ignorance
> to make a believable point.
>
> Truth is, the chances of the first living organism forming randomly
> are so fantastic that the odds are essentially ZERO given what we
> know. Perhaps another unknown element is needed or something that
> existed then acted as a catalyst and is no longer present or
> perhaps...who really knows?
>
> Plus, it points out that Darwin's understanding of cells comes from
> the "cutting edge" of mid-19th century. What if Darwin had our 21st
> century understanding of the complexities of even the simplist living
> cell? Would he have proposed the same theory? maybe...maybe not. But
> if Darwin's understanding of such complexities was comparible to a
> "mudhut", then our current understanding is that it's more complex
> than a Saturn 5 rocket.
>
> Third, the film does not dispute but embraces "evolution" as it
> applies to all living things AFTER the formation of the first living
> cell. So there is no disagreement for about 3.5 billion years, just on
> the first day.
>
> The "Hitler/Darwin" connection Miller makes is another flat out lie,
> in the film Stein clearly states what could happen when scientific
> theories as crackpot as "Eugenics" are exploited in a society lacking
> in moral & ethical boundaries, such as existed in Nazi Germany.
>
> Also...noted athiest Richard Dawkins is in "Expelled" and he flatly
> states that "Intelligent Design" could have played a role, which left
> both Ben Stein and myself rather stunned at such an admission. Of
> course, "God" could not be involved but another advanced race
> could...amazing...
>
> Finally, this is not a "great film" it's messy and goes off in too
> many directions. Plus it relies on Stein's "charisma" at times which
> is not a good thing (I did like the "backscratcher" with the
> telescoping rod). It would've been better had it used the past as
> Copernicus risked quite a bit in challenging the accepted theory of
> the planets and sun rotating around the Earth. Just like those today
> who follow the science and wind up questioning the accepted theory of
> Darwin as it applies to the formation of life on Earth.
>
> Ken
you guys should check out "case for the creator". it's done by a guy
who was an atheist. he went to scientists to get the science behind
creation.
Penni
|
