Ben Stein's Expelled - The American Holocaust Endgame by Eugenecists

[PEOA]

Alex says, .....that the science is never settled.....many people have thought a lot of things.....later they discovered it was false.....then they latter discovered what they thought was false was true.....and on and on and on......the conflict is reveled in the contradiction of most of what anyone believes.....where is the firm ground.......

[grapecrusher1]

Gravity is just a theory, too!!

I believe that Intelligent Design is right because some guy in a church told me "god told him it was right."

Recently some guy here proved that the sun actually spins around the earth and handily shot down any argument to the contrary.  Truly brilliant.

Really, it just feels safer to find answers in god --- much less confusing than this science stuff --- the science stuff tends to be to difficult to understand anyway --- and sometimes gets proven wrong (global warming) --- god is never wrong.  Havent you noticed?

Heck at least with god I know where my grandma is. 

Pass me a pillow I need to clutch.

[Damascus]

Intelligent design can become established once it provides some empirical evidence, not just subjective evidence. Intelligent design cannot be settled because it cannot provide any testable evidence as of yet. If it dose we can then accept it as fact.

[Scootle]

Why was I unaware of this thread until today?! This might just be my new favourite thread on this forum!

I first watched Expelled back in December after Bermas mentioned it on his show, but I watched it again today with some friends after reading about more censorship of ID during the week, and then decided to do a search for it on this forum. I've just read through all 11 pages of this fascinating and entertaining discussion.

More censorship of Darwin dissenters...
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=184449.0

It's pretty fascinating how members of this forum who are devoted to exposing the lies of the scientific establishment and the flaws of 'consensus science', and how debates surrounding things like 9/11, climate change, vaccines etc. are suppressed, can at the same time dislike the movie Expelled, which basically exposes the same thing, just because it is questioning evolution. I guess the movie was right, some people are too entrenched in their world views - even truthers.

I've been doing alot of research into the ID v Darwinism controversy over the last few months, and have been working on one of my trademark YouTube compilations on the subject for some time. I am not a follower of any religion, and before I woke up, I used to be a die-hard atheist, but after studying the subject intensely, I do believe that Intelligent Design offers the best explanation for the origin of complex biological mechanisms and genetic information. That's not to say that I don't believe in evolution though as defined as the history of life, or even common descent.

The problem with 'evolution' is that, like 'climate change', there are a number of different definitions that get blurred together under a single vague term. In the same way people are called "climate change deniers" if they are skeptical of MAN-MADE climate change, Darwin dissenters are often accused of denying evolution in general when actually they are only challenging certain aspects of evolutionary theory.

There are aspects of 'evolution' that are fact, there are aspects that are theory and there are aspects that amount to little more than blind faith. The faith aspect is what Dawkins calls "The Blind Watchmaker" - the idea that chance alone can create complex biological mechanisms and genetic information - and that's mainly what ID challenges.

The Blind Watchmaker idea is not science, because it can't be falsified ... well actually it can, and that's what ID tries to do, but Darwinists just dismiss ID so they make their beliefs unfalsifiable. By suppressing dissent they have turned a scientific theory into a religious dogma.

Intelligent Design on the other hand can be falsified - despite what the courts say - by falsifying its key principles. If it could be shown that complex systems can be formed by a gradual, undirected, Darwinian process, then design would no longer be necessary and Occam's Razor would falsify it. This is what several ID critics have claimed to have done. Although they don't use the word 'falsify', they prefer to use the word 'debunked' instead. I guess because if they used the word 'falsify', it would legitimize ID as science, which of course they don't want.

Their 'debunking' however is pretty pathetic. They mostly rely on computer simulations. And, just like the simulations used by NIST to support their 'thermal expansion' fairytale and the computer models used by the IPCC to abolish the medieval warm period and support their AGW alarmism, these evolutionary simulations have blatantly been programmed to do what the Darwinists want. Rather than testing the limits of Darwin's theory, they basically assume there is no limit, and rather than simulating Darwinian evolution, they actually simulate a kind of goal-directed evolution ... in other words, Intelligent Design! So rather than refuting ID they are essentially proving its fundamental point.

As for the Wedge Strategy and all the others things like "cdesignproponentsists", I personally couldn't care about the political or religious motivations of the Discovery Institute, that's not going to stop me from agreeing with their scientific arguments. I agree that the highly materialistic world we are living in at the moment is bad for people's spiritual and psychological health, and the increasing acceptance and promotion of Darwinism over the last few decades has certainly influenced that - hell, here in the UK Darwin is idolized like a prophet by the BBC, and he's on the back of our ten pound notes - but beyond that I don't really have much of an opinion when it comes to the societal effects.

[Dok]

Freedom-of-Speech Camp Mum on Chief Scientist's Firing

The dismissal of Dr. Gabi Avital as Chief Scientist in the Education Ministry because of his ideological views has passed fairly quietly. Criticism of his firing has come from the nationalist, right-wing camp, but not from the left-wing circles that generally champion freedom of speech and thought.
Avital, known for his nationalistic, Jewish-oriented, anti-evolution and anti-green approach, was fired this week by Education Minister Gideon Saar. Avital said he has no intention of protesting the move, as “Saar has every right to fire me.” He protested, however, the calls to have him fired: "Where is the freedom of thought and debate on these important issues?"

Avital was widely criticized in certain circles in recent months for having said that schoolchildren should be exposed to opinions critical of Darwin's theory of evolution, should be aware of opposition to global warming theories, and the like.

Minister of Science Dr. Daniel Herskovitz, head of the Jewish Home party, recently came to Avital’s defense when he said that criticism of certain aspects of the theory of evolution was widespread and that there was no reason to fire the kippah (yarmulke)-wearing Chief Scientist.

Avital was appointed Chief Scientist just ten months ago, and the Education Ministry said the duration since then was a “test period.” Minister Saar met with Avital twice over the past month. Avital told Arutz-7 that he regrets that he would not be able to complete some of the projects he has begun, such as those showing a demographic trend in favor of the Jewish population.

Dr. Avital recently told a radio interviewer that the nation’s cadre of left-wing writers cause damage to Israel. “Writers are supposed to be part of a country’s spiritual backbone,” Avital said. “They must be those who set the country’s vision and spiritual path. Amazingly, the main leading writers write with estrangement, to the point of automatic solidarity with the country’s enemies. I am referring to A. B. Yehoshua, Amos Oz – who wrote in Haaretz in favor of the Turkish flotilla ship just one day after the incident happened - David Grossman, and others. What is missing is literature that identifies with Zionism and is guided by love of homeland and the State.”

Regarding illegal foreign workers and the upcoming deportation of some of their children, Avital said, “Those who say that they should not be deported do not live among them. Let’s see what would they say if their street would become Eritrea. We are not deporting children; we are parting from families whose work permits have expired and who are now returning home. They are not war refugees whom we have to willingly take in.”

Avital blamed the New Israel Fund and others, “who are funded by Europeans, and simply wish to fan the flames of controversy and foment unrest in Israel, all for the goal of turning Israel into a ‘state of all its citizens’ [as opposed to a Jewish State].”

Avital has also said that global warming is not a fact, and has in fact been disproven in various studies. “What motivates this ‘green religion’ and its supporters to scare the world into believing that the end is near?” he has asked. “It is reminiscent of the ‘religion of evolution.’”

He has also said that he sees no reason to recycle materials at three times the price of their original cost.   Rabbi Rafi Feuerstein of Har Nof, Jerusalem, noted on Arutz-7’s Hebrew newsmagazine that no contradiction necessarily exists between Torah and evolution: “I am a student of Rav Kook, who writes that the Torah is not a book of physics or science, and does not provide exact details about how the world and man was created and via which natural laws and principles. Even if it occurred by what is called evolution, G-d created the process, just as He created the Law of Gravity, and there is no contradiction… Some scholars have written that the timeline detailed in Genesis – Day One, Day Two, etc. – refers to time as man understands it, but that in fact, before man was created, these time periods could refer to millions of years…”

In any event, Rabbi Feuerstein said, “Rabbi Kook said that the deep concept of the theory of evolution is that the world is always advancing and developing, and this corresponds with the Jewish approach that the world is always coming nearer and nearer to perfection.”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139949

[jeremystalked1]

You want to see Ben Stein made to look like a fool.  Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

Ben Stein basically says Peter Schiff is crazy and guess what, Peter Schiff was 100% correct.

Ben Stein is no genius....  =)

And that's the desired reaction.  You have to pick Donkey or Elephant.  There's no middle ground, and don't even THINK about wandering off.

[m]

I haven't seen the movie but it sounds to me the way you all are fighting each other that this movie is a divide and conquer tactic for those in the freedom movement to be divided with religious/science beliefs and create infighting.  The cat is already out of the bag and Alex and many others have already made films about this subject eugenics so now they can come out and make their own version since people already know about it to start a rivalry among the members here. 

in·fight·ing

I mean really... ben stein is not one of us. He about as real as Glenn Beck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeJVta1OVng&p=3E3FCC8184678572&playnext=1&index=36

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQsrYG85WpM&feature=fvw

[Dig]

I haven't seen the movie but it sounds to me the way you all are fighting each other that this movie is a divide and conquer tactic for those in the freedom movement to be divided with religious/science beliefs and create infighting.  The cat is already out of the bag and Alex and many others have already made films about this subject eugenics so now they can come out and make their own version since people already know about it to start a rivalry among the members here. 

in·fight·ing

I mean really... ben stein is not one of us. He about as real as Glenn Beck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeJVta1OVng&p=3E3FCC8184678572&playnext=1&index=36

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQsrYG85WpM&feature=fvw

Actually, the reason the movie has incredible credibility is because Ben Stein does push NWO crapola, but this movie is 100% truth and exposes the brave new world agenda at the core.

It is similar to when Bill Maher said live that there was no way he was taking a vaccine because he would never trust the government with anything so important as emergency medical policy (same guy who spent months pushing the deathcare bill).

When such people display overt acts of humanity, it is important to see. Beck's issue is that he has been lying so much, been deceptive so much that it will be very difficult for him (even in moments of humanity) to be believed given the past. If Beck did a documentary on how Bush's wars and the Patriot Act are unconstitutional and exposed the DU use in the Middle East...it would have a huge impact.

See the film and judge for yourself. Unless you are a Zaitgeist cultist, I am sure it will be worth your time.

[m]

Well Beck's latest thing is him saying that slavery was good at first then government ruined it.  So he already is doing exactly what we said along that he will get people to follow him and then say something to discredit the whole movement.   Ben Stein is no different. The movie is just to divide people.  Same ole boring tactics.  I'm not buying it.  Only movies I watch and trust are the movie's here: prisonplanet.tv

Yes I'm a cultist.  Good one.  Thanks for making my point for me.  infighting.

[Dig]

Well Beck's latest thing is him saying that slavery was good at first then government ruined it.  So he already is doing exactly what we said along that he will get people to follow him and then say something to discredit the whole movement.   Ben Stein is no different. The movie is just to divide people.  Same ole boring tactics.  I'm not buying it.  Only movies I watch and trust are the movie's here: prisonplanet.tv

Yes I'm a cultist.  Good one.  Thanks for making my point for me.  infighting.

Infighting?

The Zeitgeist Agenda is the New World Order, what are you talking about? How is it infighting if this is exposed? Look up Tabula Rasa

So you are saying that we should not see movies for ourselves and evaluate them? We should be easily swayed to censor information based on Tavistock narratives and Z-Daywalkers?

[Scootle]

I dunno... so many people who watch this film try to find a conspiracy behind it. The dawkins cult try to find some malevolent christian conspiracy, many truthers claim it's a divide and conquer tactic. Can't you just see it for what it is: a fun and hard hitting exposée of the controlled scientific establishment and the eugenecist psychopaths? It's a great way to introduce people to the subject of eugenics and it thoroughly discredits those appeal to authority, appeal to consensus and "peer-review" arguments we hear from the establishment in other debates like the 9/11 debate, the global warming debate and the vaccine debate. I watched it with a couple of my friends a few weeks ago.  Before watching it they didn't really agree with my 9/11 views because they believed that "credible" bodies had disproven demolition arguments. After watching Expelled they realised those "credible" bodies are just as controlled as the government itself and are now much more skeptical of everything.

[Dig]

I dunno... so many people who watch this film try to find a conspiracy behind it. The dawkins cult try to find some malevolent christian conspiracy, many truthers claim it's a divide and conquer tactic. Can't you just see it for what it is: a fun and hard hitting exposée of the controlled scientific establishment and the eugenecist psychopaths? It's a great way to introduce people to the subject of eugenics and it thoroughly discredits those appeal to authority, appeal to consensus and "peer-review" arguments we hear from the establishment in other debates like the 9/11 debate, the global warming debate and the vaccine debate. I watched it with a couple of my friends a few weeks ago.  Before watching it they didn't really agree with my 9/11 views because they believed that "credible" bodies had disproven demolition arguments. After watching Expelled they realised those "credible" bodies are just as controlled as the government itself and are now much more skeptical of everything.

Perfect! Hit the nail right on the head.

[Overcast]

I dunno... so many people who watch this film try to find a conspiracy behind it. The dawkins cult try to find some malevolent christian conspiracy, many truthers claim it's a divide and conquer tactic. Can't you just see it for what it is: a fun and hard hitting exposée of the controlled scientific establishment and the eugenecist psychopaths? It's a great way to introduce people to the subject of eugenics and it thoroughly discredits those appeal to authority, appeal to consensus and "peer-review" arguments we hear from the establishment in other debates like the 9/11 debate, the global warming debate and the vaccine debate. I watched it with a couple of my friends a few weeks ago.  Before watching it they didn't really agree with my 9/11 views because they believed that "credible" bodies had disproven demolition arguments. After watching Expelled they realised those "credible" bodies are just as controlled as the government itself and are now much more skeptical of everything.

Indeed, I thought that was the whole concept of the movie.

I didn't see it so much as pushing intelligent design as much as exposing the fact that those on the other side REFUSE to even say there's a possibility they are wrong. Any 'science' that cannot see alternate possibilities is not really a legitimate science - is it?

At one point - there was NO DEBATE that world was flat and the center of the universe - obviously; that was wrong.

There is always - always - always a possibility that WE are wrong. Period.

I believe in Intelligent Design - but I do admit, to myself and God; that - yes, I could be wrong and sometimes I'm not quite sure God exists. But he knows that, as do I.

Personally; I can't see the logic in; order coming from chaos, and matter and energy just forming out of nothingness, but that's 100% subjective.

I stick by my opinion that God created the world using evolution. Everything living is still formed by a single cell, but no matter what - it always has a 'creating entity' - be it a parent or another tree, etc.

I don't see things 'deviating' that dramatically between creation's beginning and now. I suspect it's the same process still in motion. Perpetual Motion - which science says cannot happen...

[Scootle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIGvHrpBECI#t=165s

Great debunking there Dawkins... bravo... 

[Scootle]

Now this is interesting ... Remember that trial in 2005? ...Well one of the plaintiff lawyers was Eric ROTHSCHILD ... And it seems that in the ruling, the judge essentially copied Rothschild's opinion word-for-word... Conspiracy?

From Rothschild to Judge Jones: Descent with Modification!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFhYjazo0CY&fmt=35

Now that's what you call 'Descent with Modification', Haha !

[Dok]

Astronomer Denied Job at University of Kentucky Due to Perceived Sympathy for "Creationism"

Martin Gaskell is an astronomer who is originally from the United Kingdom. He came to the U.S. in 1975 and later received his M.S. and Ph.D. at the University of California at Santa Cruz. He's not a creationist. As we'll see below, he's generally a theistic evolutionist, who has at times expressed minor criticisms of some aspects of evolution (he accepts common ancestry) and an openness to the possibility of intelligent design. In 2007, Gaskell was on the faculty at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, where he taught in the department of Department of Physics and Astronomy. At that time, he applied for a job at the University of Kentucky (UK), hoping to serve as the founding director of a newly planned observatory. But the UK didn't hire Gaskell. Instead they hired Timothy Knauer, who was considerably less experienced. Why? The hiring search committee at UK confused intelligent design (ID) with theistic evolution, and both with creationism, ending up with Gaskell filing a religious discrimination lawsuit against UK. His case shows that if academia merely thinks you're an ID-sympathizer -- regardless of whether you actually are -- then you're a "creationist" who should have no role in public outreach at the university. Here's how Gaskell's case panned out.

Because UK rejected Gaskell's application on the basis of what they perceived to be his "creationist" views, Gaskell has filed a lawsuit against UK alleging religious discrimination. Gaskell is represented by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). Evidence revealed in a court order filed by a federal district court in Kentucky on November 23, 2010, shows that "[t]here is no dispute that based on his application, Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position." One scientist who oversaw a search committee at UK to hire the best applicant wrote to the search committee that "Martin Gaskell is clearly the most experienced" of the applicants. (p. 5) The court thus found that UK "concedes that Gaskell had more education and experience." (p. 1)

According to the court, UK rejected Gaskell's application because the university believed he was a "creationist" and couldn't tolerate having such a person in a position that would involve public outreach. The court wrote:

    The Search Committee also became aware of Gaskell's public statements on the scientific theory of evolution. In 1997, Gaskell had been invited to deliver a talk at UK on Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation. There is no transcript or recording of Gaskell's lecture; however, Gaskell maintained his lecture notes from the talk. The parties greatly debate exactly what Gaskell personally believes regarding the theory of evolution and the Bible. Although he did not attend the lecture, Moshe Elitzur, an astronomer in the UK Physics and Astronomy Department, informed Cavagnero that one of his colleagues who attended, Gary Ferland, had commented that Gaskell was a "creationist" and did not hide his beliefs. Elitzur was concerned about hiring someone in a position with significant public outreach who was a creationist. (pp. 7-8)

The court notes, however, that "Gaskell denies that he is a 'creationist.'" (p. 8) Before evaluating the extensive evidence of discrimination against Gaskell that is revealed in the court's order, it's important to understand further what Gaskell himself actually believes about origins. Below we will see that based upon Gaskell's stated views, he's in fact not a creationist, although he has expressed doubts about neo-Darwinian evolution and the chemical origins of life.

What Are Martin Gaskell's Actual Views on Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Creationism?

The search committee learned about Gaskell's views on origins by reading his online notes from a talk he had given, Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation. From reading those notes, it becomes clear that Gaskell is definitely not a "creationist" in the young earth sense. In fact, as will be seen below, it's not clear that he's a creationist in any standard sense. His view is probably closest to a theistic evolution position, with some skepticism of biological and chemical evolution, and a willingness to take seriously the possibility of intelligent design (ID).

Gaskell's presentation reviews various viewpoints on origins, noting that there are many possible viewpoints that Christians can hold. He expresses clear disagreement with young earth creationism, but also notes that "there are significant scientific problems in evolutionary theory" and that "these problems are bigger than is usually made out in introductory geology/biology courses":

    The main controversy has been between people at the two extremes (young earth creationists and humanistic evolutionists). "Creationists" attack the science of "evolutionists". I believe that this sort of attack is very bad both scientifically and theologically. The "scientific" explanations offered by "creationists" are mostly very poor science and I believe this sort of thing actually hinders some (many?) scientists becoming Christians. It is true that there are significant scientific problems in evolutionary theory (a good thing or else many biologists and geologists would be out of a job) and that these problems are bigger than is usually made out in introductory geology/biology courses...

While Gaskell does not specifically identify with the ID position, he notes that it is a position that ought to be taken seriously as a criticism of evolution, and in fact recommends the writings of Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe:

    While discussing controversies and interpretations of Genesis I should mention something that has been much debated in recent years but is not an interpretation of Genesis: what is called "Intelligent Design". This movement, which is often erroneously confused with young-earth creationism, is just exploring the question of what evidence there is in the universe for design by an intelligence. This is really a general, non-religious question (although with obvious religious implications), and there is no opinion on the interpretation of Genesis. ... t should be realized that, despite some popular claims to the contrary, science has no satisfactory explanation of the origins of life yet. Note that the question of the origin of life is a separate problem from the question of the validity of some theories of evolution. The evidence is very good (and gets stronger every year) that all life on earth descended (i.e. , evolved from) from a common origin. There is still a problem of the ultimate origin of life. A discussion of the current controversies over evolutionary theory and how Christians view these controversies, is beyond the scope of this handout, but the now extensive literature discussing and reviewing books such as those of Phillip E. Johnson ("Darwin on Trial") and of biochemist Michael J. Behe ("Darwin's Black Box") will give you some of the flavor of the diversity of opinion of Christian biologists (and geologists).

Gaskell continues: "This is probably a good place to state that I personally have no theological problem with the idea of God doing things in the ways described in modern theories of evolution (i.e. , 'theistic evolution')."

It appears that the position closest to that held by Dr. Gaskell is a non-dogmatic theistic evolution position that is seriously open to the possibility of intelligent design and also recognizes scientific problems with biological and chemical evolution.

But Gaskell's true views here really aren't important. What matters is what the UK search committee thought that Gaskell believed, and how they acted upon it. We already know that, for whatever reason, UK believed Gaskell was a "creationist." And as we'll see in the next post, they denied him the job on that basis.

Apparently, it was Gaskell's willingness to take ID seriously and his recognition that there are problems with evolutionary biology and the origins of life that were too much for the search committee at UK. In their view, unless Gaskell fully toed the line on materialist explanations of life, he was a "creationist," and as will be seen in the next post, they believed he therefore did not deserve the job at UK.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/astronomer_denied_job_at_unive041611.html

[Scootle]

Apparently, it was Gaskell's willingness to take ID seriously and his recognition that there are problems with evolutionary biology and the origins of life that were too much for the search committee at UK. In their view, unless Gaskell fully toed the line on materialist explanations of life, he was a "creationist," and as will be seen in the next post, they believed he therefore did not deserve the job at UK.

"We have a turd in the punchbowl!"

[Damascus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&feature=related

[Scootle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&feature=related

You can believe in evolution in the historical sense, and still be a christian. if you believe in some form of guided evolution ... which is intelligent design. However if you believe in evolution exactly how mainstream science portrays it - a completely blind, purposeless, undirected, materialistic, darwinian evolution guided only by 'survival of the fittest', there is no way that is compatible with religion. Anyone who tells you it is is delusional. Ken Miller for example is a leading critic of intelligent design, he believes in a purely darwinian evolution, but he is also a catholic. He is often asked how the two can be compatible and his reponse is basically 'well maybe god works really subtly, triggering mutations until he gets what he wants' ... I agree that's a possibility, but I would argue that that's intelligent design!

[Scootle]

Haha ... The National Academy of Sciences are now relying on a program similar Richard Dawkins' silly WEASEL program - that even Dawkins admits is 'misleading' and 'a bit of a cheat' - to test Darwinism ...


The Weasel lives on, now at PNAS



ID critics often complain that ID advocates go ON AND ON (and ON) worrying about Weasel-type models of evolution, as illustrations of how undirected variation and selection can rapidly converge to apparently designed outcomes. No one takes such models seriously as biology, the critics say. Weasels are toys with a strictly limited teaching purpose.

Over to the latest issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Looks like a weasel in the tall grass:

Suppose that we are trying to find a specific unknown word of L letters, each of the letters having been chosen from an alphabet of K letters. We want to find the word by means of a sequence of rounds of guessing letters. A single round consists in guessing all of the letters of the word by choosing, for each letter, a randomly chosen letter from the alphabet. If the correct word is not found, a new sequence is guessed, and the procedure is continued until the correct sequence is found. Under this paradigm the mean number of rounds of guessing until the correct sequence is found is indeed K^L.

But a more appropriate model is the following: After guessing each of the letters, we are told which (if any) of the guessed letters are correct, and then those letters are retained. The second round of guessing is applied only for the incorrect letters that remain after this first round, and so forth. This procedure mimics the “in parallel” evolutionary process.

See Herbert S. Wilf and Warren J. Ewens, “There’s plenty of time for evolution,” PNAS Early Edition. For those who cannot access PNAS behind its paywall, an earlier version of the same paper is available here.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-weasel-lives-on-now-at-pnas-2/


Methinks New PNAS Paper Is Like a Weasel

A paper by Wilf and Ewens recently published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, titled "There's plenty of time for evolution," reads like a printed version of Groundhog Day -- the classic movie where comedian Bill Murray keeps awakening to find it's the same day again. The paper's authors sniff at unnamed benighted folks who think there hasn't been enough time for (Darwinian) evolution to build the complexity we see in life. Not so, they protest. Why, all one has to do to see the light is to use the right mathematical model: "After guessing each of the letters, we are told which (if any) of the guessed letters are correct, and then those letters are retained. The second round of guessing is applied only for the incorrect letters that remain after this first round, and so forth."

But this is no more than a mathematized version of Richard Dawkins' "Methinks it is like a weasel" analogy published in his classic 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, where a string of letters is compared to that phrase in Dawkins' computer's memory, the letters that match are kept, and the ones that don't are randomly replaced until all letters match. But even Dawkins acknowledged in his book that the analogy "is misleading in important ways" because the results were judged by his computer "according to the criterion of resemblance to a distant ideal target... Life isn't like that." Well, little problems like "life isn't like that" apparently don't matter to some Darwinists who think every day is Groundhog Day.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/methinks_new_pnas_paper_is_lik041701.html

[Overcast]

You can believe in evolution in the historical sense, and still be a christian. if you believe in some form of guided evolution ... which is intelligent design. However if you believe in evolution exactly how mainstream science portrays it - a completely blind, purposeless, undirected, materialistic, darwinian evolution guided only by 'survival of the fittest', there is no way that is compatible with religion. Anyone who tells you it is is delusional. Ken Miller for example is a leading critic of intelligent design, he believes in a purely darwinian evolution, but he is also a catholic. He is often asked how the two can be compatible and his reponse is basically 'well maybe god works really subtly, triggering mutations until he gets what he wants' ... I agree that's a possibility, but I would argue that that's intelligent design!

God wouldn't need to work that way.

As for evolution - I know it's unpopular, but I think that's the way God created life. Even today - a great oak is started with a single seed. Humans at first are simply two single cells that combine; same with most all animal life.

I've always been curious with that obvious fact, why God would change the way he does things from the point of initial creation to the 'self-sustaining' model we have clear evidence of now.

Even with evolution - you *still* at some point need to ask where the energy and matter came from initially.

I think the whole big bang theory - from either point of view is absolute bunk. If the Universe has no 'creator' - then it really must have always existed... always. Energy and matter certainly cannot create themselves. If that is possible - than our knowledge of physics is horribly lacking.

In the case of the big bang, all other question aside; I've always had one big question...

If a black hole - the mass of a single star - has such an immense amount of gravitational pull that not even light can escape - how could *anything* possibly escape the combined mass of the entire universe in a *single point*?

The gravitational pull of that 'mass' would have been inconceivably stronger than any black hole that exists, without a doubt. How could anything escape that? Even if it 'exploded' - with all that mass in that small of an area, how is it that the mass didn't collapse back upon itself in an instant? We're talking billions to the exponential billions (if not FAR more) amounts of mass in a single point.

Of course, this gets to the final point... the 'end' of things. Just in the context of us each personally - we *will* come to an end - that much is certain.

At that point - how many different things can happen?

In the case of 'no creator' - I suppose we simply re-enter the food chain at the lowest point. All of our dead loved ones - all of that, is reduced to worm food. Personally - I can't see 'fate' being that cruel. Sometimes I wonder about it - and not out of rank fear or anything - but I refuse to believe that.

I can't see 'logic' in the assumption that all energy and matter just 'happened'... big bang or whatever. I could see some logic maybe in saying that the universe has *always* existed. But a 'start' or an 'end' - in a creator-less existence is silly. Some people somehow try to take the concept of a finite being - like man, and then apply it to the Universe. Is that even scientifically sound?

The only other option that seems reasonable is that there is in fact a creator... to which; each person must seek their own way in regards to that.

In the end - creator or not, it's only logical to assume that the Universe or God has *always* been here and always will be. There's no other logical conclusion to that question.

In geometric terms, Humans think in 'line segments' - whereas the Universe really can't be a 'segment' - it's an infinite line. Even if there's a 'limit' to the Universe that we can comprehend - what exists one inch past that point? Something - even if it's empty space, must. Even if the Universe is a 'sphere' of sorts - it would seem there's something outside of that as well. Like in geometry - even past the 'line segment' on a piece of paper - more exists, for certain. But a microbe on that line segment will not comprehend that.

Personally.. I think God created the Universe just like everything else happens now... through time and growth.

I suspect the pinnacle of our intelligence now - is that of a microbe compared to us, in God's point of view. We often assume, as a race, that we know a whole hell of a lot more than we do.

History proves - that time and time and time again - man is wrong.

[Scootle]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/biology_teacher_survey_authors044391.html

A survey in the journal Science hopes that teachers who doubt Darwinism will "pursue other careers." Is this proof of institutionalized discrimination at work?

"Honey, why are you seeking this promotion? Do you really want to swim with us big boys in management? You just stay in your place, sweetie." If such words were spoken to a female employee in any American corporation, she would immediately be entitled to file a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination -- and rightfully so. Such words would also reflect a corporate culture that seeks to marginalize certain employees. This form of institutionalized discrimination would seek to implicitly -- or explicitly -- discourage unwanted individuals from pursuing certain jobs. With that in mind, what do we make of the fact that a recent survey of science teachers in the journal Science quite explicitly admitted that they hope to discourage Darwin-doubting student teachers from pursuing careers teaching biology? They write:

More effectively integrating evolution into the education of preservice biology teachers may also have the indirect effect of encouraging students who cannot accept evolution as a matter of faith to pursue other careers.

(Michael B. Berkman and Eric Plutzer, "Defeating Creationism in the Courtroom, But Not in the Classroom," Science, Vol. 331:404-405 (January 28, 2011).)

There you go sweetie: if you don't accept Darwinism, we hope you'll "pursue other careers."

[lamourlady]

"...accept evolution as a matter of faith..."

Really?  Faith?  Hmmm. 

[Mr Grinch]

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=163409.0;

Darwin's original tome on evolution "The Origin of Species by Natural Selection" or "The Preservation of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life" downloadable.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27845765/Origin-Darwin

Of course the original subtitle was removed from the subsequent printings as it would spook the well meaning dupes they teach this stuff to.

[Overcast]

"...accept evolution as a matter of faith..."

Really?  Faith?  Hmmm.  

So if you don't... is it 'scientific heresy?'

[Dig]

So if you don't... is it 'scientific heresy?'

You dare take science's name in vain?

BLASPHEMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU ARE A LOGIC WITCH!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU SPEAK TO THE UNSCIENTIFIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Scootle]

SCIENCE DAMMIT!!!

[Dok]

Texas considers protecting those who question Darwin
'In academia if you talk intelligent design, all of a sudden we need to get rid of you'

A Texas lawmaker has proposed a legal protection for those in academia who question Charles Darwin's beliefs that man evolved from sludge and today's world is a result of the survival of the fittest.

State Rep. Bill Zedler told WND today that his House Bill 2454 is a pre-emptive effort to make sure problems don't arise in Texas with established scientific communities discriminating against someone who challenges their beliefs.

His plan is short and to the point:


An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.
"Isn't it amazing in the halls of academia you can almost believe anything and espouse everything and they go right along with you. But lo and behold if someone talks about intelligent design, all of a sudden, we need to get rid of you," Zedler told WND.

Such actions already have been documented, and have produced court cases.

In Texas, it was several years ago that Baylor University Professor Bob Marks, whose research indicated a challenge to Darwin's theory of evolution, was ordered taken off the Internet by his employer.

Walt Ruloff, the executive producer of Premise Media, who worked with actor Ben Stein on the project called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," about the monopoly Darwinian beliefs hold in academia, wrote in the Baylor student newspaper about his concerns at the time.

"As many of you have heard, Marks, a distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering, has been conducting research that ultimately may challenge the foundation of Darwinian theory. In layman's terms, Marks is using highly sophisticated mathematical and computational techniques to determine if there are limits to what natural selection can do," he wrote. "At Baylor, a Christian institution, this should be pretty unremarkable stuff. I'm assuming most of the faculty, students and alumni believe in God, so wouldn't it also be safe to assume you have no problem with a professor trying to scientifically quantify the limits of a blind, undirected cause of the origin and subsequent history of life?

"But the dirty little secret is university administrators are much more fearful of the Darwinian Machine than they are of you," he said.

[Scootle]

Darwinist goes Orwell, literally tries to argue that 2+2=4 is wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu5hOZwLZyk#t=44s

[Dok]

Louisiana senators reject repeal of science act

A Louisiana law that allows public school science teachers to use supplemental materials in their classrooms in addition to state-approved textbooks will stay on the books.

The Senate Education Committee voted 5-1 Thursday against the repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act -- turning away arguments that it creates a way for teachers to challenge evolution and teach creationism in classrooms.

Senators sided with Gov. Bobby Jindal and Christian conservatives who argued the law was designed to promote critical thinking.

Guidelines adopted by the state education board prohibit promotion of a religious doctrine in the supplemental materials and require that information presented by teachers be "scientifically sound and supported by empirical evidence."

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=1356464

[Overcast]

Louisiana senators reject repeal of science act

A Louisiana law that allows public school science teachers to use supplemental materials in their classrooms in addition to state-approved textbooks will stay on the books.

The Senate Education Committee voted 5-1 Thursday against the repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act -- turning away arguments that it creates a way for teachers to challenge evolution and teach creationism in classrooms.

Senators sided with Gov. Bobby Jindal and Christian conservatives who argued the law was designed to promote critical thinking.

Guidelines adopted by the state education board prohibit promotion of a religious doctrine in the supplemental materials and require that information presented by teachers be "scientifically sound and supported by empirical evidence."

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=1356464

Only reason one side tries to legally ban the debate from the other side - is fear that they are wrong.

If the theories/faith is(are) solid - it shouldn't be a concern, eh?

I know - that doesn't apply here, there is just no solid evidence that either 'creation theory' is true. There is lots of circumstantial, maybe 'this would seem to indicate' kind of evidence, but...

Well, we ALL KNOW that HUMANS are never wrong.

First person that claims anything of that sort - has just opened their mouth and removed all doubt that they are in fact, an idiot. Of course, even then - that might just be circumstantial evidence...

If a third party was to observe our society - one fact they could definitely 'take to the bank' is that humanity is often wrong about many things, yet they seem to think they (humans) are always right... lol

[Dok]

Only reason one side tries to legally ban the debate from the other side - is fear that they are wrong.

Guess thats why any and all teaching and debate on anything other than Evolution is squashed as fast as possible.

Mix a little nothing and some time and poof!! everything!!. Its magic....

[Overcast]

Guess thats why any and all teaching and debate on anything other than Evolution is squashed as fast as possible.

Mix a little nothing and some time and poof!! everything!!. Its magic....

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-convicted-of-heresy

This time, Galileo's technical argument didn't win the day. On June 22, 1633, the Church handed down the following order: "We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo... have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world."

This is the reverse in effect, but either is a disservice to man. We should be free to debate these topics, that's the concept of education at it's core.

Yet, if you think as Galileo did - in opposition to some accepted 'truth' - you are demonized and jailed.
And of course, the reverse has been true with the 'church' in charge.

Nothing has done more damage to faith in God than organized religion, sadly.

[White Rose Sophie]

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-convicted-of-heresy

Yet, if you think as Galileo did - in opposition to some accepted 'truth' - you are demonized and jailed.
And of course, the reverse has been true with the 'church' in charge.

Nothing has done more damage to faith in God than organized religion, sadly.

Which is of course, by design.   

[Overcast]

Which is of course, by design.   

Indeed, there is no better place to attack an enemy than from within their own stronghold.

[Scootle]

Some blows to the Darwinian establishment's trashing of the US constitution...


California Science Center Pays $110,000 to Settle Intelligent Design Discrimination Lawsuit
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/california_science_center_pays050081.html

The state-run California Science Center (CSC) has paid $110,000 to settle a lawsuit by American Freedom Alliance (AFA) against CSC for violating AFA's First Amendment free speech rights to advocate intelligent design (ID). As part of the settlement, the CSC also has invited AFA to present the ID event it previously cancelled.

CSC rented its IMAX theater to AFA to show Darwin's Dilemma, a science documentary advocating ID. However, when CSC learned the film would portray ID favorably, CSC cancelled AFA's event. AFA filed suit in California Superior Court alleging viewpoint discrimination and breach of contract.

"This is an historic victory for the ID movement," said Casey Luskin, an attorney and policy analyst with Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. "The First Amendment forbids government preference for one viewpoint over another, yet evidence disclosed in this case shows the CSC, Smithsonian Institution, and LA County Museum of Natural History attempted to stifle dissent from Darwinism. The result was illegal state-sponsored suppression of protected speech."

AFA was represented by William J. Becker Jr., of the Becker Law Firm, who was supported in the case by the Rutherford Institute. The case number is BC 423687.

"This is the first free speech case for the ID movement, and its first victory in that field," said Becker. "This settlement represents an acknowledgement that a state-owned science institution sought to censor an event solely because it related to ID. It's a vindication for ID, and First Amendment guarantees of free speech."

This case reflects the ongoing trend of discrimination against intelligent design. In January, the University of Kentucky paid over $100,000 to settle astronomer Martin Gaskell's claim that he was wrongfully denied employment for doubting Darwinism. Soon thereafter, Applied Mathematics Letters paid thousands of dollars and publicly apologized to avoid litigation after it wrongfully withdrew mathematician Granville Sewell's paper critiquing neo-Darwinism.

Series of Costly Case Settlements Warns Darwin's Bullies: Stop Censoring Intellectual Freedom
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/settlement_of_intelligent_desi050161.html

This case is merely the latest in a long line of well-documented incidents of discrimination against proponents of intelligent design. In 2004, biologist Richard Sternberg was ousted from a research position at the Smithsonian Institution after he allowed a pro-ID paper to be published in a Smithsonian biology journal. Two government investigations found he was the victim of a campaign to investigate and intimidate him due to his skepticism of Darwinian evolution.

In 2006, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure at Iowa State University in large part due to his work developing arguments for intelligent design from cosmic fine-tuning. E-mails uncovered during a public records request showed that Gonzalez's colleagues engaged in secret tenure deliberations where support for ID was counted as an automatic negative.

In 2007, distinguished professor of electrical engineering Robert Marks was forced to shut down a research lab at Baylor University because it investigated intelligent design. There have been multiple similar well-documented cases around the nation.

CSC rented its IMAX theater to AFA to show Darwin's Dilemma, a science documentary advocating ID. However, when CSC learned the film would portray ID favorably, CSC cancelled AFA's event. AFA filed suit in California Superior Court alleging viewpoint discrimination and breach of contract.

[Scootle]

A friend of mine made fun of me for liking the movie Expelled, and with all the NAS/AAAS/NCSE disinfo sites out there devoted to debunking the movie I decided to write a (lengthy) blog post responding to their claims.

In Defense of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and Intelligent Design
http://skepticdenialism.blogspot.com/2011/10/in-defense-of-expelled-no-intelligence.html

Claims addressed:

"The producers misled pro-Darwin participants about the title of the movie"
"There is no conspiracy to 'expel' ID proponents"
"ID argues that life is too complex, it must have been designed"
"ID is anti-evolution"
"Abiogenesis is not evolution"
"ID is untestable/unfalsifiable"
"ID violates the principle of methodological naturalism"
"ID is rebranded creationism"
"Darwinism is compatible with theism"
"Expelled blames Darwin for the holocaust"
"Ben Stein twisted Richard Dawkins' comment about alien designers"

Then the second half of the post is devoted to the scientific debate.

Wow ... Scootie, I believe this is
the best piece I have ever read on ID ...
it is EXPERT stuff. You may remember that
I, too, am passionate about ID vs DARWIN ...
have read a good deal of the literature ...
and you have produced a FANTASTIC post.
This piece could get you a major book deal,
I am sure of it. Just wow.

Going back to watch the videos that I haven't seen yet.

[Dok]

'Christian Not Welcome' Sign in Public Square

Discussions about the most contentious issues, and even some not-so-contentious ones, are routinely labeled “debates.” For instance, there’s the “debate” over abortion, the “debate” over so-called same-sex “marriage,” and even the debate over who should be playing quarterback for the Denver Broncos.

But are these really debates? If by “debate” you mean a discussion where both sides get a fair chance to make their respective cases, the answer is increasingly “no.”

Jennifer Lahl, a bioethicist, recently learned this the hard way. She was invited to a meeting of fertility specialists in Canada to discuss her documentary, "Eggsploitation," about egg donation. Lahl told organizers that while she was happy to debate the issue, she would not go simply to be mugged. The organizers assured her “that they really wanted to hear from [her] and engage all sides of the issue.”

As you might guess, that’s not what happened. As Lahl told readers at BreakPoint, before she spoke, another presenter began by telling the audience he was a “Darwinist, secularist, and Jewish.”

What does that have to do with the ethics of egg donation? Nothing, of course. People can be any or all of these things and still be troubled by the exploitative nature of egg donation. In fact, the other presenter actually shared some of Lahl’s concerns!

But the announcement had everything to do with what came next: a personal attack on Lahl based on her Christian faith. His so-called “presentation” consisted of slides showing where Lahl attended school, who her co-workers were, and her writings for Christian websites. His goal for the audience to know who Lahl was, not what she had to say. Her Christian credentials, in his estimation, disqualified her from even being heard.

And how did the audience respond? While one woman told a Canadian newspaper she was “ashamed” of how Lahl had been treated, the crowd, for the most part, cheered the “verbal mauling” that she received.

Sadly, Lahl’s experience is much more common than you would expect. As she asks in her BreakPoint.org article, “Who is allowed in the public square?” the answer is “not Christians.”

The directness of this attack and its unvarnished prejudice is intended to silence people like Lahl. It’s a way of saying, “If you disagree with the prevailing orthodoxy, this is what you can expect.”

Lahl, to her credit, refuses to be intimidated. In her words, she resolves not be silenced, especially at such a time as this. Sadly, her response is increasingly uncommon. What could be called a “spiral of silence” has taken hold in public discussion of moral issues. People are reluctant to speak out for fear of being treated as Lahl was.

The only response is to refuse to be intimidated. Remember two things: First, the Christian view of things like marriage and the sanctity of life is actually the majority view in this country. We’re not out of step with public opinion. The other side is! Second, remember that personal attacks, however painful, should be seen as admissions of the weakness of the other side’s case.

That’s why, instead of avoiding the debate, we should insist that it actually take place. Instead of remaining silent, we must speak out.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-not-welcome-sign-in-public-square-60631/

[Overcast]

But the announcement had everything to do with what came next: a personal attack on Lahl based on her Christian faith. His so-called “presentation” consisted of slides showing where Lahl attended school, who her co-workers were, and her writings for Christian websites. His goal for the audience to know who Lahl was, not what she had to say. Her Christian credentials, in his estimation, disqualified her from even being heard.

And how did the audience respond? While one woman told a Canadian newspaper she was “ashamed” of how Lahl had been treated, the crowd, for the most part, cheered the “verbal mauling” that she received.

Sadly, Lahl’s experience is much more common than you would expect. As she asks in her BreakPoint.org article, “Who is allowed in the public square?” the answer is “not Christians.”

The directness of this attack and its unvarnished prejudice is intended to silence people like Lahl. It’s a way of saying, “If you disagree with the prevailing orthodoxy, this is what you can expect.”

And then - this one..

[Scootle]

HAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!

Richard Dawkins Struggles to Remember "Origin of the Species" Title Against Rev Giles Fraser.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv2U2Xp2Nu8