On May 11, 2:32=A0am, TNW <TNW7z7z7z12...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Ken McElhaney wrote:
> > 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.=
Then he should come back from the dead and explain to the general
scientific community that someone can question his speculation on the
origin of the first spark of life and it does NOT question everything
else that followed.
> Biochemists, *not* evolutionary biologists, are the ones currently
> studying the origins of life. =A0There's a lot of research going on and
a
> lot of theories.
Yes there are.
Funny thing is, this should be simple stuff. After all, we know all
the non-organic materials needed, we know the sequence it should be in
and yet no one has really come close to creating life by this method.
I would think that if the scientific community lived up to it's
standards, then at least no one should publish completely unproven
theories (or better yet just call them what they are, "hunches" or
"speculation") until someone can deliberately create life from
completely non-organic materials.
> 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.
Yes they are. It pays to see the movie as it avoids a lot of
misconceptions.
> Why even deal with
> evolution - why not debate the biochemists working on the origins of
> life itself? =A0
Bingo!
Because some of the scientists (as well as some folks here in this
here newsgroup) say that to question the "first spark of life" as
Darwin theorized is to question all that followed. Of course, that's
crap but hey, it can shut some people up.
> And why leave out scientists who believe that God created
> the universe, yet firmly disagree with Intelligent Design? =A0That's
where=
> the discussion should be -- not between ID proponents and atheists.
Because the film, for the umpteenth time, does not promote "I.D" as
the "valid" theory, it states that discussion of "I.D" in any form to
be included in "reviewed" papers is not allowed. That those who do
mention it are punished.
> > 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: =A0"A concentration camp tour guide tells Stein that the
> Nazis were practicing "Darwinism," and that's that."
A classic example of how a reviewer takes one sentence and completely
misrepresents the entire film. Stein cleary states in the film that
science ("eugenics" for example) practiced in a society without moral
or ethical boundries can
lead to one like Nazi Germany. I assume Miller simply forgot that
clear statement because it would not match what he wanted to write
about the film.
Bottom line, Miller is wrong.
> The fact that Eugenics proponents used evolution to justify their
> beliefs is irrelevant. =A0Bad, sick people use God and religion to
justify=
> evil behavior; does that mean God or religion caused or contributed to
> their evil behavior?
Hitler clearly spelled out what means he used to exterminate the
"lesser species". Hitler was not "mad" or "insane", he was evil and
used racial purity as the basis for his genocide.
> 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. =A0
The problem is you can make the same general claim for all races at
some point in history. Miller's problem here is that previous crimes
against Jews had little to do with "racial purity" or creating a
"master race". Those ideas only sprang up in the early 20th century
and Hitler warped them into his own twisted vision. Miller's point
lack historical validity.
> 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. =A0
If he never heard of nor subscribed to "Eugenics", there would be no
"master race" in Hitler's vision of utopia. No effort to "cleanse" the
world of a particular race of people. Of course without this belief
system of his, Hitler might never have risen to power anyway, so your
point is rather lacking here. You cannot separate Hitler's beliefs and
assume he would do the same thing or even be in the same position to
carry it out.
> And Darwin himself did NOT agree with Eugenics. To let the
> "Nazis practicing Darwinism" statement go unchallenged is simply wrong.
Miller's characterization is simply wrong. He did not single out one
statement and say that in particular was wrong, he charaterized the
entire presentation as being that one statement. Stein's own preface
to that section of the film stands in stark contrast to Miller's
claim.
Miller is simply wrong, period.
>
>
>
>
> > 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. =A0Of
> > 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. =A0They're inserting a supernatural explanation into a
> current gap in science.
No No NO NO NO NO.
Once more for the cheap seats, the thrust of the film is that a wall
has been built by the general scientific community that bans
discussion of any theory that opposes Darwin's. NOT because "I.D." is
anymore "valid" but because the general weakness of Darwinian theories
when it comes to the origin of the first living cell has created such
a defensive ("elitist" if I may borrow a line from Hillary) mindset
that to question this is to question ALL of Darwin's work.
Put it this way, if you don't know then you can't rule anything out.
It doesn't mean you accept it, but you should be able to at least
discuss it. What happens if someone does find some evidence contrary
to the current line of thinking? Should it not be part of the
discussion? Or does it get summarily ruled out as well simply because
it doesn't fit the "proper" thinking?
>
> 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. =A0A scientist who
> proposes a supernatural explanation for something we don't yet
> understand is no longer doing science; he's doing philosophy or
religion.
That is not disputed and I certainly believe that science needs to be
separated from religion or philosophy. Science is the "how" while
religion & philosophy provides the "why". Having said that, if the
science leads you away from traditional Darwinian thought as to the
origins of the first living organism, shouldn't you be able to pursue
it without fear of being fired or not getting tenure?
> 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.
Then Richard Dawkins will not be your friend...:)
One part of the film I found interesting was the explaination of one
scientist (not Dawkins) who said science will basically banish
religion in the future, something for the great unwashed to do on
weekends until they too become more enlightened. What struck me about
it was that his little fantasy was almost word for word what a biology
professer said during one of my cl***** oh so many years ago. So I
can say from my own experience that while their viewpoints should not
be represented as common among the scientific community, it is
certainly there.
Ken
|
