Ken McElhaney 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.
Darwin very specifically said that his theory was ONLY about the origin
of *species* (i.e., the diversity and complexity of life), NOT the
origin of life itself.
He, along with others, speculated on how the first living matter (or
spark of life) might have come into existence, but that speculation had
nothing to do with his theory of evolution. He was quite clear about that.
Biochemists, *not* evolutionary biologists, are the ones currently
studying the origins of life. There's a lot of research going on and a
lot of theories.
If, as you say above, the film "embraces 'evolution' as it applies to
all living things AFTER the formation of the first living cell", then
the producers are in perfect agreement with Darwin. Why even deal with
evolution - why not debate the biochemists working on the origins of
life itself? And why leave out scientists who believe that God created
the universe, yet firmly disagree with Intelligent Design? That's where
the discussion should be -- not between ID proponents and atheists.
> 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.
Miller says: "A concentration camp tour guide tells Stein that the
Nazis were practicing "Darwinism," and that's that."
The fact that Eugenics proponents used evolution to justify their
beliefs is irrelevant. Bad, sick people use God and religion to justify
evil behavior; does that mean God or religion caused or contributed to
their evil behavior?
The point Miller was trying to make is that long before Darwin there had
been hundreds of years of discriminating against, scapegoating and
murdering Jews. Hitler blamed them for Germany's and the world's woes;
he would've carried out "The Final Solution" if he had never heard of
Eugenics. And Darwin himself did NOT agree with Eugenics. To let the
"Nazis practicing Darwinism" statement go unchallenged is simply wrong.
> 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
But they aren't questioning evolution with a competing scientific
explanation. They're inserting a supernatural explanation into a
current gap in science.
Science does not include supernatural explanations. Period. If there is
something that is unknown, scientists do research (for centuries if need
be) seeking a natural (vs supernatural) explanation. A scientist who
proposes a supernatural explanation for something we don't yet
understand is no longer doing science; he's doing philosophy or religion.
My personal opinion - a person who uses the gaps in science to prove the
existence of God has as narrow a vision of God as the atheist who claims
science disproves the existence of God.
- TNW
[To e-mail me, remove 12345 from my address.]
|
