Why do we (the scientific world) find it so hard to expand beyond a singularly flawed misconception? Even if they come up with some other theory to explain away the divine origins of the universe, at least they could remain somewhat scientific and intelligent.
*Sigh*
Check it out...
"Imagine pulling the lever of a slot machine and the only way to win is to hit the jackpot two hundred and fifty times in a row. The odds are against you. Yet, these are the same odds that would have to be overcome for the simplest life-form to evolve and form each of the two hundred and fifty proteins by random chance. It’s seemingly impossible.Little was known about the complexities of a single cell when Darwin birthed his theory of evolution. Microscopes weren’t yet powerful enough to observe below the cellular level of life; and thus, the concept of a single cell was like that of a mud hut—very simple.Today we are learning more and more about what it takes for life to form. Beyond the statistical improbabilities of evolution, we’ve learned that the single cell is not at all like a mud hut; but rather, more complex than a galaxy. In fact, for a dinosaur to evolve a single wing, all five systems in a cell would have to change identically at the same time—something that Darwin could never have imagined.So, the complexities of the single cell quickly lead us beyond Darwin, or so that’s where research scientist Dr. Richard Sternberg thinks the evidence leads. Yet, when he gave credit to intelligent design in a Smithsonian science journal, he found himself the object of a massive campaign to smear his reputation. But Sternberg’s not the only one: multitudes of scientists who begin questioning Darwin’s theory of evolution are quickly “shut-up” by their employers, the media, the educational system, and even the courts.Ben Stein, former Presidential speech writer, public speaker, and game show host sought to uncover why scientists are losing their jobs, can’t get tenure, or are denied publication in scientific journals when Darwinism is questioned. He quickly found that evolutionists would rather believe we are “nothing more than mud animated by lightning” than to believe humankind carries “the spark of the divine.” Disturbed by his findings, Stein is going on record with a major theater release, interviewing numbers of scientists who were openly ridiculed and ostracized for even suggesting intelligent design. The film, fittingly titled Expelled, is scheduled for a wide theater release in April.Creation Science Evangelism was recently given the opportunity to prescreen the film and believes it is a “must see.” Viewers will be stunned by the admissions of evolutionists whose strategies are focused solely on injecting Darwinian doctrine into everyday life. We’ve created a resource center at where you can find more information about the upcoming film, view trailers, download leaders’ guides, and win free tickets to see Expelled in your area.Please do all you can to support this film and blow the whistle on the suppression of intelligent design and academic freedom."
Interesting, to say the least...but not really surprising.
LadyAnne
1 comment:
This films' main thesis, that anyone in the science community who believes in God is being "expelled" is false at its core.
In a New York Times interview, Walter Ruloff (producer of Expelled) said that researchers, who had studied cellular mechanisms, made findings suggestive of an intelligent designer. "But they are afraid to report them".
Mr. Ruloff also cited Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and whose book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”, explains how he came to embrace his Christian faith. Mr. Ruloff said that Dr. Collins separates his religious beliefs from his scientific work only because “he is toeing the party line”.
That’s “just ludicrous,” Dr. Collins said in a telephone interview. While many of his scientific colleagues are not religious and some are “a bit puzzled” by his faith, he said, “they are generally very respectful.” He said that if the problem Mr. Ruloff describes existed, he is certain he would know about it.
Similarly, Dr. Ken Miller is a professed Christian who wrote "Finding Darwin's God" (which I suggest you read). Dr. Miller has not been "expelled" in any fashion for his belief in God.
The movie tries to make the case that "Big Science" is nothing but a huge atheist conspiracy out to silence believers, but only presents a very one-sided look at some Discovery Institute "martyrs".
Carolyn Crocker "expelled"? - No.
Her annual teaching contract was not renewed. Was she "fired" for daring to bring God into research? - No. She was hired to teach Biology, and she decided to ignore the schools' curriculum and substitute her own curriculum.
Guillermo Gonzalez "expelled"? - No.
He was not granted tenure. The film doesn't bring up the fact that in all his years at ISU he had only brought in only a miniscule amount of grant money. Nor does it bring up the fact that in all his years at ISU he failed to mentor a single student through to their PhD. Nor does it mention that in his career at ISU, his previous excellent record of publication had dropped precipitously.
Richard von Sternberg "expelled"? - No.
Sternberg continues to work for NIH in the same capacity. Of course the movie doesn't bring up his underhanded tactics in getting Meyers work published.
This movie attempts to influence it's viewers with dishonesty, half-truths, and by a completely one-sided presentation of the facts.
If a scientists' research is not accepted by the scientific community, it isn't because the scientist either believes or doesn't believe in God, it is usually because they are producing bad science. Like the idea of Intelligent Design.
.
.
Post a Comment