My Wife and I went to see the movie “Expelled” last night. It was just released and is playing in theaters.

It is a very interesting and chilling documentary exposing flaws in the scientific community that the free flow of ideas are not welcome if the agenda is threatened. In the end, Ben Stein interviews Richard Dawkins, the author of “The God Delusion”. He, “Dawkins” is forced to conclude that ID "in some form" is in the molecular cell level of all things.

I never knew that the theory of Dawinism was the driving force behind Nazies, Planned Parenthood, Euthenasia and more.

Just wondering what Gene, Stan, and Psytrancer's responses are to the movie.

Psy, the only reason I included you was you referred to the book "The God Delusion" in another thread. I think you would find the movie interesting.

Thanks for bringing this up. I'm definitely interested to see this movie. Hopefully the movie is well balanced. As much as I enjoy Michael Moore's films, I certainly concede that it is easy to cut and paste data to give a partial picture that bolsters your point of view.

It does not surprise me that Darwinism was a driving force behind Nazism.

I always try to watch documentaries about the Holocaust, and what is chilling is that some former Nazis who are interviewed say that although what happened was terrible, that during that time they were able to dispassionately kill Jews, homosexuals, Gypsys, Slavs and other groups because they believed it was a necessary measure to create a pure New World Order.

Darwinism was not the driving force behind Nazism. Power and greed were. Darwinism and Christianity were used by Nazism to justify their actions according to whomever they needed to convince. According to one theory the Jews were exterminated so that Hitler had access to their wealth. He needed money to finance his military machine and decided that he would use that of the Jews. Since anti-semitism was already a strong force in Europe it was easy to make Jews his target rather than some other group. The other groups he targetted were also in line with the thinking of the day.

Caring more about ideas and doctrines than about people was the driving force behind Hitler, is the driving force behind all fascism...and this should look very familiar to all of us.

The mention of Hitler reminded me of this book by Jonah Goldberg that I saw the other day. Gotta get it.

Liberal Fascism
The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning
Written by Jonah Goldberg


About this Book

"Fascists,"ť "Brownshirts," "jackbooted stormtroopers”such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst?

Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term "National socialism"). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Do these striking parallels mean that today's liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a "friendlier," more liberal form. The modern heirs of this "friendly fascist"ť tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism.

Sorry, Mark, being the hardcore tightwad and cheapskate that I am, I haven't, much as I'd like to, seen it yet, so I can't comment. You'll either have to wait till it comes out on the dollar rentals or send me eight bucks..... and some popcorn, maybe a Coke too....

I haven’t seen this movie yet, but have listened to several interviews from scientist and educators who claim they were treated dishonestly when they were interviewed for this movie. They were told it was for a non-biased documentary named “Crossroads” which was only looking at the controversy. Later is was discovered the domain name for the movie had already been secured, proving purposeful deception. There is also a lot of deception in the content, according to everyone in the evolution camp.

Eugenie Scott, who is in the movie, has put a web site together. I highly recommend anyone planning to see the movie to educate yourself by first reviewing the content and watching the video on the front page.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

Stan,
The movie just is bringing out the point that in the scientific community they are not allowing a debate on the possibility of ID.

As for as the ID issue, I would have to agree with what a wise man once said.

"For if this doctrine or purpose or undertaking or movement is of human origin, it will fail - be overthrown and come to nothing; but if it is of God, you will not be able to stop or overthrow or destroy (it); you might even be found fighting against God!"

Gene,
If you have a scarcity mentality, then that is your reality.

Thanks for nothin', Mark.

Has anyone noticed what Florida and a couple other states are trying to do?

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080424/32099_Fla._Senate_Passes_Evolution_Academic_Freedom_Act.htm

If the 'ID as Science' supporters want the scientific community to engage is a scientific dialogue with them then they have to use the scientific format of observing, which means measuring, to prove their conclusion that ID is responsible for life as we know it today. If they come up with measurable data that can be repeated with similar techniques, and they allow it to be critiqued in the same manner all scientific thesi are analyzed, then the scientific community will engage in dialogue. This process takes years to complete and unless ID supporters have gone through this process nothing they say or do will be taken seriously by the scientific community. If they want to be part of the scientific community they need to do the science.

I don't think that the big fear that the scientists have about ID is ID. The big fear is that ID is not scientific and to say that ID is scientific without the science sets a prescident that the process of science is not necessary. That opens a very scary can of worms that threatens safety and reliabilty in all areas of life from health, agriculture, construction, manufacturing, etc.

From another perspective I find the 'ID as Science' pushers puzzling because they are setting the foundations for people expecting a concrete, measurable proof of God's exsistance. Is this what they want to reduce God to? Do they want to eliminate the role of faith and its ability to move mountains? If evolution supporters are seen as wolves, then the 'ID as Science' supporters are wolves in sheeps hides.

Good post, Arm.

Here is a link to a 4 minute speech by Dr. Kenneth Miller (I think) speaking about evidence he brought forward at the Dover trial. This shows some very convincing evidence that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. Dr. Miller is a Christian. I would like to hear the reaction of Gene and other creationist supporters on this site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs

The science of evolution is belittled and presented as having no basis by the Expelled movie and by many creationists. I would like to know how they can honestly do so with evidence like this. One should be forced to concede that at the very least, the evolutionist have some very convincing evidence on their side!

From another perspective I find the 'ID as Science' pushers puzzling because they are setting the foundations for people expecting a concrete, measurable proof of God's exsistance. Is this what they want to reduce God to? Do they want to eliminate the role of faith and its ability to move mountains?

Arm - you have a very good point... and actually, viewing god in the way most North American christians currently view him (a loving, kind father who takes a personal interest in our day to day affairs, but mysteriously allows bad things to happen to us) is a relatively new phenomenon.

Last year I read a book called A History of God, and was somewhat fascinated by this passage (bolding mine):


At a time when Mulla Sadra was teaching Muslims that heaven and hell were located in the imaginary world within each individual, sophisticated churchmen such as Ballarmine were strenuously arguing that they had a literal geographic location. When Kabbalists were reinterpreting the biblical account of creation in a deliberately symbolic manner and warning their disciples not to take this mythology literally, Catholics and Protestants were insisting that the Bible was factually true in every detail. This would make the traditional religious mythology vulnerable to the new science and would eventually make it impossible for many people to believe in God at all. The theologians were not preparing their people well for this approaching challenge. Since the Reformation and the new enthusiasm for Aristotelianism among Protestants and Catholics, they were beginning to discuss God as though he were any other objective fact. This would ultimately enable the new "atheists" of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centures to get rid of God altogether.

(...)

But by the beginning of the seventeenth century, leading theologians and churchmen continued to argue the existence of God on entirely rational grounds. Many have continued to do so to the present day. When the arguments were disproved by the new science, the existence of God himself came under attack. Instead of seeing the idea of God as a symbol of a reality which had no existence in the usual sense of the word and which could only be discovered by the imaginative disciplines of prayer and contemplation, it was increasingly assumed that God was simply a fact of life like any other. In a theologian such as Lessius we can see that as Europe approached modernity, the theologians themslves were handing the future atheists the ammunition for their rejection of a God who had little religious value and who filled many people with fear rather than with hope and faith. Like the philophers and scientists, post-Reformation Christians had effectively abandoned the imaginitive God of the mystics and sought enlightenment from the God of reason.


Or to put it more simply, Christians actually created the formula for atheism, by insisting on being dogmatically and unreasonably literal. I'm pretty sure there's a lesson in there somewhere.

So has anyone here actually seen the movie in its entirety?

Thanks Sharolyn for the quote. I have a difficult time reading such literature so I appreciate someone finding relevant information/ideas for me.

I have not seen the movie and I don't intend to. I'm tired of the mangling of science by the media, entertainers, Creationists, and scientists more interested in sensationalism, and propaganda than in understanding and expanding science. Recently I have come across too many articles and reports about agriculture, climate change and evolution/creation where the science is done very badly. I don't intend to increase my frustration level even more.

Not wanting to keep my mind closed like some others, I think I'll try to get to this movie if it comes here. Kind of funny, my understanding is that the movie is about the intolerance of the 'Darwin people' towards any that might look elsewhere then Darwin for answers, and here on this forum we see all manner of attack against anyone that questions "SCIENCE". Hmmm, seems Ben Stein might be right.

Arm, I quite agree that huge numbers of so-called scientific studies we read about nowadays are massively flawed. Working in the fitness industry, I'm constantly having clients bring me articles from magazines and newspapers that start with the words, "Recent studies show that..."

What the articles never mention is that the, say, weight-loss study was funded by a diet pill company, done under too-short conditions, not had proper follow-up done, done on a tiny number of people from a limited population, etc etc. So I end up with a client who's convinced that if she only eats purple foods for three months she'll lose weight. It's frustrating to say the least. And I'd be surprised if the same mistakes aren't happening in many of the other studies we read about as well.

On the question of science vs religion, it always confuses me that so many christians seem to a) believe the two should necessarily have anything to do with each other, and b) are so threatened when science shows something that doesn't agree with their preconcieved notions of how it all went down. I mean...who's to say that God didn't use evolution, or some form of evolution, to create the world? Who's to say that the six days of creation referred to in the bible aren't symbolic of a longer period of time than a day? Who's to say that any of this stuff happened the way anyone, scientists or non-scientists, think? The truth is that no one knows, or likely ever will know... and why should your faith hinge on such an unimportant question?

It seems like there are more important things to worry about.

Also, re-reading what I've written up there, I feel like I should clarify that I'm not trying to belittle anyone's faith if they do indeed find that question to be important. I'm merely expressing that I don't understand it.

BrentR;
I don’t know about Bens claims about intolerance toward those who look elsewhere for answers. He probably has a point here, and the same is also true about a lack of tolerance of evolution science among fundamentalists. You can find people loosing their jobs on both sides. But I think there is a bigger point here. Are the claims Ben seems to be making about the faulty science of evolution true? If the creationist arguments against evolution are demonstratively false, then what is the obligation of science and reason toward tolerating those false teaching in public schools?

So, hypothetically, if the flat-earth society started making political gains and established a grass-roots movement to teach their platform in public schools, then what should the scientific establishment do? According to some, it seems that we should just be tolerant of their beliefs and keep an open mind.

I think this is where the scientific community is at. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and I have seen a concentrated effort by creationist to distort and hide the evidence and pretend there is controversy where there is none. I don’t believe evolutionary beliefs were responsible for the sins of the Nazi’s, but what if they were? Does that prove evolution is false?

I try to keep an open mind on questions concerning science. But I have read enough about the content of this movie that I doubt I would learn anything to change my opinion. As soon as some solid science has been discovered which supports creationism, and explains away the evidence for evolution, I will be all ears. As I understand it, there is little or no science in this movie.

I would recommend you see the movie, but balance it out with some investigation into the other side. You might learn a lot!

I don’t know who on this forum you think was attacking those who question science, but I have always tried very hard to attack ideas and not individuals. If you see it differently, I always welcome constructive criticism.

BrentR, I don't know who you are referring to either. Science questions science all the time. That's science. The problem with "bad science" is that the media feeds it to consumers as science just as Sharolyn's example shows. The questions aren't asked.

Are creationists willing to have the creation as described in the Bible analyzed into minute pieces with a million questions? Evolution is the result of this kind of analysis.

I think the real problem is that science has been very poorly taught in our schools. People think that science is just a bunch of facts that need to be regurgetated. Like I've said before its a process of questions, and tests. Children are great at science until they hit the school system where they are told 'its like this'. Two year olds drop things repeatedly when they study gravity, three year olds ask a zillion whys, four year olds stick their heads into every crook and cranny, but by the time we graduate from highschool we just know how to fill out an exam paper. So creationists, like everyone else, forget about the questions. Instead of questioning science they need to use science to question creationism and use those questions to prove that creation happened as they believe it did.

To me science is just a tool, it is not unquestioned truth, I do not put science or scientists on a pedestal and worship it like so many do. Science can be wrong, science can work great evil, science can lead people to destruction. That is why science is a tool, a dangerous tool that must be watched closely and controlled tightly. Science can serve us in many wonderful ways, ways that are undoubtedly God pleasing, it can also work in horrible ways that can only serve the darkest of mans nature. I thank science for medical wonders and engineering marvels. I curse science for such creations as chemical weapons, abortion technology, tests that allow parents to avoid the 'inconvience' of handicapped children, cloning and so on and so forth.

Brent R, I agree that science is just a tool that can be used towards good or evil. And I don't think science should be put on a pedestel, I do not agree with scientists like Dawkins and their 'evangelical' approach towards science.

Brent R
So has anyone here actually seen the movie in its entirety?

I did.

The movie is exposing the fact that there is no open debate allowed in the scientific community unless it fits their agenda.

It is the story of real people who dared challenge the system and because of it were expelled.

Hmmmmmmmm

How many people could identify with the expelled scientists.

Stan:

One thing I have learned from this forum is not to accept everything from presumption!

As per your Ken Miller link ; I am not a biologist and certainly not qualified to debate this point, (and I won't) but I am wondering what exactly does this prove when all the rhetoric has been cleared away? Unless I am missing something, what he is saying could be interpreted to signify that humans and apes share a common ancestor, but does it actually prove it? Do you personally accept it as conclusive proof? I also noticed that he referenced the alleged human fused gene with a corresponding chimp gene, but didn't go so far as to say that it matched up with genes from other primates as well. Also, he (and creationists do this too, I know) made an issue out of the fact the the other side "didn't have an answer, they didn't even address it" I guess that doesn't prove anything to me either. just because I don't have a ready answer for the other guy's argument doesn't mean he is ultimately right.

"The movie is exposing the fact that there is no open debate allowed in the scientific community unless it fits their agenda."

Open debate occurs in the scientific community all the time. Studies are critiqued by the studier, and then critiqued by peers. The study has to be repeated so the results are duplicated. Studies on the same question from different angles are done and the process takes years and years.


Open debate is not allowed if the rules of the debate are not scientific and don't follow the scientific procedure. From what I've read the agenda of the scientific community is to keep science science.

Scientists like Dawkins have an obvious agenda to promote atheism since they think our God gene is causing too much trouble. But the scientific community is broader than those that think like Dawkins. Narrowing the scientific community to a select number is like narrowing the christian community to a christian sect. I suppose one could make a movie exposing the fact that there is no debate allowed in the christian community unless it fits their agenda and then focus on the JW, H, CS, fundamental mormoms etc. Wait . .. I'm sure that will be next - afterall Dawkins has already written a book that does that!!

(Note: I have only read reviews of the movie and the book, how unscientific and biased is that!!! Brent R is right. I should watch one and read the other before I comment. That'll be next winters project. I have just argued myself out of contributing on this thread, so carry on without me!)

Axel, no I don’t accept it as conclusive proof. But it is one of many evidences pointing to this conclusion. It is consistent with other evidences such as fossils, DNA, RNA, Protien Functional Redundancy, and studies of bone structures. If one takes the time to investigate each of these, and no counter scientific evidence is produced, one eventually comes to accept it as very probable.

You are correct that just because the other side didn’t have a ready answer does not in itself prove anything. But this was a team which had access to all the evidence for evolution and was supposed to be prepared to counter arguments brought for it.

Regarding your question about other primates, here are a couple of quotes from the following site:

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00621.htm

“Apes and humans differ by one pair is correct with humans having one less
pair. Most scientists that study this subject favor humans fusing of two
pairs to reduce the number and there seems to be evidence for this in
chromosome 2. Some scientists favor the fission theory where apes got an
extra pair from fission of one of their chromosomes...but I don't know of
the evidence for this. By the way, primates closest to humans have 48
pairs while others like monkeys differ substantially”

“You can see it if you can find a picture of
the chromosomes (called a karyotype) of a chimpanzee and a human and put
them side by side. It is assumed that in humans two chromosomes fused to
produce a total of 46, because most gorillas also have 48. It makes more
sense that the event happened in humans than that the event happened
independently in the same spot at random in chimps and gorillas.”

>>>If one takes the time to investigate each of these, and no counter scientific evidence is produced, one eventually comes to accept it as very probable.<<<

What scientific counter evidence can possibly be produced when, by evolutionary definition, any counter evidence is unscientific? Sheesh, this is just the problem "Expelled" was documenting. Dang near anything can look "probable" in that kind of vacuum.

Gene, could you bring up an example of good evidence that has been produced for creation that the evolutionists have dismissed as “unscientific”? Irreducible Complexity seemed to be the hot new evidence at one time, but I have seen some good evidence to put it into serious doubt. I would also like to hear how all the evidence I mentioned in my last plot does not lead to a reasonable conclusion that evolution is probable. Show me how the evolutionists are operating in a vacuum, where the creationist are not. Who is ignoring more physical evidence?

Stan, you're still missing the point because you're confusing some things. A person can proceed in a scientific manner (observing, measuring, hypothosizing, etc.) and come to a dead wrong conclusion. It happens all the time. It's a natural part of "doing science". The fact that they're wrong (or percieved to be wrong) doesn't neccessariy mean they're "unscientific" in their approach. Yet when it comes to ID the focus is on its "scientificness" or lack thereof when the only thing that can be conclusively said abvout ID is that its conclusions are at odds with the idea of naturalism. Ken Miller's "Dover argument" concerned the scientific validity of the concept of irreducible complexity itself moreso than the conclusions drawn from it. Even a casual glance at his argument reveals it to be a strawman as he begins by misdefining irreducible complexity and it all goes downhill into mass confusion from there. If I'm going to get into this any more I'm going to insist that the word "science" and any of its forms not be used. This is a word that can be spun as hard and fast as the Holdemaqns do the word "church". For some it means a method, for others it means "true" or "right" conclusions-even truth itself, for yet others it means a naturalistic explanation and for most it now means all three or more at the same time. It is a word that wreaks havoc on clear thinking to the extreme benefit of one side. As a former materialist myself it wasn't until I despun this word that I began to realize that I had presuppositions just like everyone else; that my philosophy preceeded my judgement of the evidence. I went in circles with myself for at least as long as I've been going in them with you and that is what this issue ultimately comes down to (what preceeds what)and, therefore, where we will remain (going in circles) without the despin of this word.

OK, Gene, I agree that the word science has its problems, and I’ll try not to use it. I understand and agree with your point that the scientific method does not necessarily always lead to a correct conclusion. But I would argue that 99% of the time it leads to a conclusion more correct and closer to the truth than previous conclusions. I really can’t think of any branch of naturalistic exploration which has had to dump years of conclusions and go back and take an earlier branch, abandoning years of research. It would surprise me very much if some day evidence will be produced which makes invalid the whole 200 year learning path of evolution.

You and I have a different approach to this whole argument. I keep trying to meet on some common ground where we can discuss hard evidence, and you seem to always want to couch our arguments in a philosophical context. I am much more interested in the hard evidence, taken by itself without the extra baggage of “world views” and other philosophical context. I happen to believe the evidence can be discussed in the raw, from our own natural intelligence and reasoning abilities, without resorting to considerations like how our philosophies might precede our judgments. If you think otherwise, then maybe that common ground will be harder to reach, because I fail to see how thousands of evidences which have lead to naturalistic conclusions could be somehow support a conclusion 180 degrees off if we could somehow just get our philosophy on a different ground.

For instance, I allude to evidence which shows irreducible complexity to be in doubt, and you ignore the evidence and instead focus on how Miller misdefined and confused it. If you could have shown me why the evidence against IC is wrong, it would have given me something to start processing. I don’t remember the strawman argument Miller produced, or any confusion, so your lack of specifics is not making any impact on my

"without the extra baggage of “world views” and other philosophical context."

Stan,

Isn't that leaving out some of the equation of everything that is life? If the "spiritual", "world view", and "philosophy" come out of what evolved, how can those things not be considered to explain what evolved That's not just science.

Brent

Brent, when you observe from nature that the sky is red or the wind is blowing, do you need to run this information through a spiritual filter in order to come to the proper conclusion? No, what it is is what it is!

Facts like human chromosome #2 is fused from two, meaning most likely 23 pairs used to be 24, which happens to be the number of the animal whose DNA and features most closely match ours. When this information leads to the same conclusion that many other independent information brings, I am saying at some point it is perfectly reasonable to draw conclusions based on nothing other than raw dispassionate reasoning. Do I need to resort to philosophy to determine the correct answer to 2+2?

Do I need to resort to Philosophy to determine the answer to 2+2 ?

Sounds like a question Brent could never answer .

Why??

He would have to spend more than a life time anelizing .

It is a Holdeman thing . If You anelize it all the time you do not

need to go forward .

If You can not seek the simple truths in life , You are exzempt from

things that could change lives .

Reb,

Why don't you go on a hunger strike against me?

Brent

science - knowledge of facts and laws based upon and arranged in an orderly system

One can do away with the word 'science' but I don't think that changes the argument. One needs to do away with the science to ignore the facts and laws arranged in an orderly system.

But given that one doesn't use the word but retains the system then I have a question for a creationist. The question comes from genuine curiosity since I've thought about Gene's response and don't understand it. I'm backing up in my thoughts to learn more about creationism.

I know the creation story in the Bible, but my understanding is that creationists want creatonism taught in a classroom where knowledge of natural facts and natural laws are based and arranged in an orderly system. Therefore, according to creationists there must be natural facts and laws that support a 6 day creation. What are the natural facts and laws based on an orderly system that do this? And is it correct to assume that the orderly system is the same one used for exploring evolution?

Arm, I couldn't agree with you more. The worst thing Christianity ever did for itself was to try to understand God as a matter-of-fact entity who could be pigeon-holed into something easily understandable. Science and facts should have nothing to do with faith, in my opinion.

Reading the book I mentioned above, I was really struck at how different people's perceptions of God have been throughout history. The only unifying factor in many cases was humanity's search for some kind of spirituality, whatever it ended up being called and however it ended up being perceived.

Although I'm certainly not expecting anyone here to agree with me, this is my perspective for what it's worth: the idea of God as a "loving father" has never made any sense to me. Last fall I listened to my uncle tell a story about a huge bush fire, and how the building that they had all prayed for was spared. He considered it a miracle... but the only thing I could think was, "So you're saying God is basically a moody dictator? What about everyone else's prayers for their buildings, which he decided not to spare? How does this make any sense?"

This is not to say I'm criticizing my uncle's view of this as a miracle, just saying it doesn't work for me -- and in fact, I find it actually kills any faith I might have very effectively. I feel like it requires me to check my brain at the door, because it essentially makes the world quite un-understandable to me.

On the other hand, there are many other perceptions of God throughout history that DO make more sense to me, that don't force me to imagine him as some sort of despot picking and choosing who has good things happen to them and who has bad things happen to them. That perspective to me is infinitely more comforting, and honestly just seems far more sensible to me. And none of those perceptions of God would allow him to be measured or weighed in a scientific way -- he is completely removed from our understanding, therefore there is no obligation to "prove" or "disprove," and certainly no need to explain away science. God doesn't have to fit into the box of science, and science doesn't have to be an apologist for God. They're two separate spheres entirely.

I would like to see Intelligent Design or Creationism, and other parts of Christianity taught in public schools, not in science class, but perhaps in the context of like in history. For example, the history teacher should say, this is the way many people used to believe, and many still do; and then detail the belief and why people believe it over evolution.

It doesn't bother me that public schools teach evolution, but it does bother me that they do not teach an alternative view, even from the point of history.

It doesn't bother me that I was taught that the world was created by God from an early age, but I think that at some point preferably while in the 4-8 grade, a realistic picture of evolution should have presented in some context. Mennonite School presented evolution as a worm crawling out of the ocean, sprouting legs, growing hair, and eventually becoming a human.

"They're two separate spheres entirely."

They do have something in common. If you keep looking for answers you keep coming up with more questions.


Joe, I don't know what is taught in schools anymore but what you suggested was done to some extent 20 to 30 years ago. In English grade 8s had the opportunity to study the myths and religious stories of different cultures, in history in grade 7 or 8 they learned about the different religions of the world.

I think it would be healthy if children were presented with different viewpoints or at least told that they and their parents are entitled to their viewpoints, yet at the same time how it is necessary to respect the beliefs of others. That can be done through readings in history, english, a second language, or in locally developed theology or philosophy classes.

Well, Mark, I finally got around to seeing EXPELLED. I thought it was very well done. My only disappointment was that just exactly what "ID" IS was never made clear enough to really appreciate the distortions of it. Nevertheless, the message that we are living in a scientific dark-age came through. Galileo had less evidence to overthrow the reigning worldview of his day than is available today to overthrow the tottering shambles of neo-Darwinism and the modern gravity-dominated cosmology, yet the Catholic church is endlessly chided by the so-called objective scientific community for its failure not only to immediately succumb to observational evidence, but for its outlandish methods of silencing the opposition. Go figure, as they say.

It looks like I will not be going away as I thought a few weeks ago.

The method of intelligent design was not made clear in the movie [expelled]. That was my opinion as well as I watched it. I think the reason it was left unclear was for good reason.

The reason in my judgment was that what form of intellegent design on purpose was not eluded to. The one idea of intellegent design is the creation story as understood on the face value from Genesis. There another idea of intellegent design and that is that the intelligence of God directed creation while using evolution as the process.

The real issue of debate that we tend to miss in the fray may actually be the differences between [chance selection and intellegent design]. The more serious atheist does not like probing the idea that a higher intellengence could have used [evolution] as the process through which He spoke creation into existence. Where did this greater intellegence do it from, finally becomes the serious question!

Brent; your idea that if evolution be true then things such as philosophy are also things that have evolved and these should not be ignored. I ask; why would we place more authority upon physical things and reason rather than a mixture of reason and the things of faith and philosophy? These appear to be valid questions.