Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

30 04 2008

It is not often that I feel like standing up and cheering a movie in the theater, but this was just the experience I had after seeing the movie Expelled this last weekend.  My friend, Chris, put together an outing for students and adults from our church to go see the film and I’m very thankful he did. 

Simply put, the movie Expelled exposes the oppressive hold that Darwinian evolution has on academia.  It is shot in documentary style, and tells the story of the conflict between Intelligent Design and Neo-Darwinism in the scientific community.  Now, that last sentence might have made the movie sound boring to some of you, but it is anything but.  Ben Stien, who wrote, produced, and functions as the inquisitive tour guide in this investigative documentary has put together a film that is humorous, informative, disturbing, and very engaging.  I sat in the row behind many of the students and the movie held their attention the entire time.

Although I could have applauded the movie for the quality of its craftsmanship, it was the truth presented in the film that really gave me a charge. Allow me to share some of the highlights. 

First, the movie made very clear that the issues between Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design are not merely scientific issues, but a clash of different worldviews.  The Evolutionists are not “pure” scientists; they are scientists who are drawing conclusions and presenting theories based on their worldview.  Evidence that challenges their worldview is dismissed.  I found the emphasis on this point refreshing since this charge of bias is usually only placed at the feet of the religious, while the humanists claim objectivity.

Second, Expelled does a superb job of showing the logical implications of the worldview of the Darwinian Evolutionists.  The film draws a line from Darwin’s theory to some of its ugly offspring: the Holocaust, eugenics, abortion, and euthanasia.  I can imagine that this connection will enrage many evolutionary scientists, however those scientists need to acknowledge the obvious link between theories like natural selection and survival of the fittest and what happens when they are socially applied.

Third, although Ben Stien probably doesn’t realize he is doing this, this movie points to the truth of Romans 1:18-23.  God has made himself evident through the created order and sinful men are bent on suppressing this truth.  The film ends with a powerful exchange between Stien and Richard Dawkins in which Stien asks Dawkins, “But what if, when you die, you find yourself standing before God; what will you say?”  Dawkins responds with Betrand Russell’s famous quote: “God, you gave us insufficient evidence.”  Although Dawkins thought himself quite cleaver in using the quote, his words drive home the point of the movie: people are intentionally suppressing the evidence that God has left!

I’d like to go and view the film again to watch it with a bit more critical eye (during the first viewing, I was just focused on following the films logic and trying to understand its premise).  That being said, I still feel comfortable encouraging you to go check it out.  Although it is not a Christian film, the movie’s worldview is a lot closer to ours than most of what you find at the Cineplex.   Kudos to Expelled for exposing what is going on in the American scientific community!

For a little more enticement to see the film, check out this clip. 




22 responses

30 04 2008

ID has been unfairly discriminated against in the same way that alchemy and astrology have been unfairly discriminated against. None of these three are scientific, so of course people object to teaching them as science.

You are oh-so-wrong about the alleged Darwin/Holocaust connection. You say that the Holocaust is the result of natural selection. Tell me, if a coyote chases two rabbits, one fast and one slow, which is most likely to be caught and eaten? The slow one. Congrats, you “believe” in natural selection. Does that make you a Nazi?

Natural selection is a plain fact. It’s something that is true whether you’re a scientist who recognizes its existence or a creationist who denies it.

The next question is whether the fact that ‘coyotes catch more slow rabbits’ equates to ‘so we should eradicate the Jews’. Umm, obviously *no*. There is no logic in that train of thought. In fact, drawing conclusions for moral behavior from observations of phenomena in this way is logically forbidden (see Hume and the is/ought problem).

So natural selection is a natural phenomenon that exists whether you want it to or not, and natural selection has zero relevance to human moral choices. Let’s see whether Hitler was being illogical and attempting to use the Theory of Evolution to excuse his behavior. A lot of people have misused various ideas in this way. Scanning through Mein Kampf, there are zero (0) mentions of Darwin. We do see references to thoughts related to eugenics–the basis for which pre-dated the theory of evolution by thousands of years, since ever since the domestication of animals and crops people have been breeding these species for selected traits.

We do see reference to God, and Hitler sums up his hatred of Jews in one sentence: “Their whole existence is an embodied protest against the aesthetics of the Lord’s image.” Hitler thought that the Aryans were superior to other humans, but he thought that this was so because the Aryans best embodied the image of God. He saw the Jews as engaged in an active attempt to subvert and debase the image of God by encouraging interbreeding with other races.

Hitler was able to get so much mileage out of his anti-semitism in Germany because it had a history of anti-semitism going back centuries, and based upon an abuse of Christianity. Germany was heavily influenced by Martin Luther, who unfortunately in his later life was vehemently anti-semitic. He wrote a book “On the Jews and Their Lies” in which he endorsed burning down synogogues, driving Jews out of the country, destroying their houses, punishing them with mutilation or death for teaching Judaism, and even killing them. Hitler’s opinions had a heck of a lot more to do with *that* than with the evolution of bird phenotypes on a South Pacific island.

30 04 2008

Thanks for your comments, Nimravid, but I respectfully disagree. First, as the movie makes very clear, ID proponents are true scientist practice real science. It is not comparable with alchemy or astronomy. All they desire is to have their evidence and theories enter the discussion. The movie is arguing for free speech and an open forum for publishing their articles.

Second, your illustration of natural selection shows the flaws and dangers in this Darwinian thought. To begin with, if the coyote catches the slower rabbit, will all the slow rabbits eventual die out and only fast rabbits remain? This is the leap that Darwinian evolution makes, but the evidence just doesn’t support it. Also, implied in the idea of natural selection is that the quicker rabbit is the better rabbit. Translate this to human beings, and the faster humans, the taller humans, the stronger, smarter, ect. humans are the better humans. Are you comfortable with that? That we assign human value based on ability? Works for pro-choice advocates and it worked for the Nazis as well. Whether you want to admit it or not, humanists use their scientific theories to support their moral choices.

As to Luther, I agree with you that his book was awful and did serious harm to German thinking. However, his book was a departure from a truly Christian worldview, not an outworking of it. The same holds true for Hitler. My point (and the film’s point) is that horrors like the holocaust (or the millions of unborn children this nation has murdered) are an outworking of the Darwinian worldview.

30 04 2008
Darron S

All they desire is to have their evidence and theories enter the discussion.

Where’s the beef? Seriously? ID has no theory. ID has no evidence. They “claim” there is evidence but “afraid” to come forward with it for fear of… ??? Fear of getting the Nobel Prize? Any scientist who had evidence for ID would likely get their name put up in lights with the likes of Newton and Einstein! Afraid? PFFFT!

To begin with, if the coyote catches the slower rabbit, will all the slow rabbits eventual die out and only fast rabbits remain?

You’re thinking one-dimesionally. Think of the rabbit chase taking place between millions and rabbits/coyotes over hundreds of thousands of generations. Over time the pressure on the rabbits will lead to faster rabbits, which will lead to faster coyotes, which will lead to “fasterer” rabbits, then to “fasterer” coyotes, etc, etc… of course this a simple example to get the idea across… environmental changes, other species, and myriad other pressures of course come into play with regards to species adaptation.

Further, I would advise that you differentiate between the scientific “Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection”, and the human application of the theory which you described above, which is “Social Darwinism”. I don’t know anyone who advocates eugenics or any form of Social Darwinism.

How do you feel about Nuclear Theory? Humans applied that scientific theory to build bombs that we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing thousands of Japanese. Does that make the scientific theory good or evil? No, we would judge the humans that make the decision to use the knowledge. The theory is factual, supported by evidence, and impartial.

Evolution is factual, supported by evidence, and impartial. Sorry for the rant, but I just had my morning coffee! Cheers!

30 04 2008

Wow. Fun discussions today!
First point, watch the movie. The evidence put forth in the film is that ID scientists are trying to put forth their theories and are losing their jobs, tenure, and being banned legally from the discussion.

Second, why is it always: just give us millions of years and you’ll see the reality in our theory? Observable micro evolution doesn’t prove evolution on a macro scale. Darwin was drawing observations from micro evolution and survival of the fittest on an observable micro scale. His evidence wasn’t based on the observable millions-of-years model you explained. Also, there are numerous elements (as you pointed out) that lead to the coyote catching the slower rabbit, and not all of them have to do with the rabbit’s genetic inferiority. Maybe the faster rabbit got a leg cramp and for those precious few moments he is the slower rabbit. Maybe a bush gets in the way of the coyote getting to the slower rabbit, so it gets away. Maybe the coyote just likes the way the faster rabbit smells, so he pursues it longer. This whole idea of Darwin observing “natural selection” and then extrapolating a theory to explain our existence just seems like bad science and an attempt to make man autonomous from our Creator.

Third, you seriously don’t see social Darwinism being applied anywhere?! Just look around! Our culture has bought this worldview and it now defines the way we look at life and the values we place upon it. Familiar with Princeton professor Peter Singer? He is an avowed evolutionist and allows that theory to guide his ethics. Here are some great quotes from his book Practical Ethics: “In Chapter 4 we saw that the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings.”
Or how about this one: “When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.”
Such thinking arises from Singer applying his understanding of the life (this understanding given to him by the Darwinian view of life) to ethics. He is simply working out his Darwinian informed worldview.

And this is why your analogy from Nuclear Theory breaks down. Nuclear Theory does not give us an explanation of life and existence. Darwinian Biology does. It, through its theory, presents a materialist understanding of life. It says we are only here by chance. There is no immaterial reality. There is no purpose, no life after death, no ultimate meaning. These components of Darwin’s theory have severe moral implications and they are built into the theory itself. The same cannot be said for Nuclear Theory.

30 04 2008

“To begin with, if the coyote catches the slower rabbit, will all the slow rabbits eventual die out and only fast rabbits remain?”

Darron S. responded to this.

“Also, implied in the idea of natural selection is that the quicker rabbit is the better rabbit. Translate this to human beings, and the faster humans, the taller humans, the stronger, smarter, ect. humans are the better humans.”

This is *not* implied at all. This is the type of irrational thinking that leads to nonsense like Expelled. You’re equivocating, taking one meaning and transforming it into a meaning that is similar but qualitatively different. An evaluation of fitness in the face of some selective force is a quantitative judgment—does the strain reproduce more successfully another one, and if so by how much? Trying to go from there to a value judgement is like trying to conclude 100 is “better” than 10 because it’s a bigger number, or an adult is “better” than a baby because it has more cells.

Making this kind of wonky thinking even more irrational is that there is no evolutionary “best”. In some cases success is achieved by being smart, but in other cases it’s achieved by being dumb as a rock but running really fast. Which of those is “better”? If we’re going by sheer success, it looks like bacteria are the “best” organisms on the planet since they outnumber every other organism many times over.

These kind of value judgments are irrational, and scientists do not makes such value claims.

30 04 2008

Allowing myself to get sidetracked. Tut-tut.

“My point (and the film’s point) is that horrors like the holocaust (or the millions of unborn children this nation has murdered) are an outworking of the Darwinian worldview.”

Except as I demonstrated, it’s not. The Holocaust had much more to do with German Christian anti-semitism than with Darwin’s observations on natural selection. We’d been practicing selective breeding for millenia, and eugenics is based upon this type of selective breeding. What Darwin did was look at nature and say, “You know what we do with breeding animals? The same type of selective process occurs in nature.”

Do you deny that natural selection occurs? Do you deny that slow rabbits are more likely to be eaten than fast rabbits?

30 04 2008

I simply deny that such process leads to a new species of really fast rabbits or superior rabbits. Although you argued that evolution doesn’t make value judgments, isn’t that the idea of “evolving,” going from lesser to greater, from worse to better? I may be missing something, so I looked up the word “evolution” in the dictionary and this is what I found: “a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state.” Sounds like some sort of value judgment to me.

30 04 2008

Even the Jewish Anti-Defamation League has denounced Expelled for misappropriating the Holocaust for their agenda.

So much for trying to Godwin Darwin.

30 04 2008

Naziism is not something that is led to by natural selection. Let me ask you a question, are there any nazi governments left on earth? No. Why? Because they _weren’t the fittest_. Survival of the fittest does not mean the most powerful individual, a people who are able to respect one another and work together for a common goal is many times more powerful than a single bully. Societies with respect for human rights band together with other societies who respect human rights, and are thus fitter than societies that don’t.
This whole ‘darwinism is naziism’ is just ignorance on such an unfathomable scale that’s hard to know where to start. What you’re doing is twisting things to fit what you want them to fit.

ID is not real science because it is unfalsifiable, for one. If you make the assumption that things are designed, then there is not way to come up with a false. If things are designed, then whatever result you come up with fits the theory because it’s obviously what the designer intended. You failed predictions are pushed into ‘not understanding the intentions of the designer’ rather than ‘falsifying the hypothesis.’ You’ve made an a priori assumption that things are designed and you’re working from there. Everything is stacked on top of that assumption and if you remove it the whole thing falls apart. The simple matter is, you can’t start from a position and work your way towards proving it, that’s not science.

30 04 2008

Thanks for your comments and I was not attempting to frustrate you. However, are you saying that Darwinism is never applied on a social scale (that somehow I’m misapplying it) and then you go on to apply it to explain the collapse of Nazism (“it wasn’t the fitest”) and the rise of a superior society?

And to the idea that ID works on a priori assumptions… the ID folks are primarily arguing that what they see in science (design, order, complexity) points backward towards an intelligent source. They are not starting with the source, they are allowing the scientific observations to point them to a source. The problem is that your worldview says no such source exists (an a priori assumption) so their conclusions can’t possibly be right.

Also, please make sure you apply your thoughts on unfalsifiability to evolution as well, especially its theory of origins.

30 04 2008
Darron S

I simply deny that such process leads to a new species of really fast rabbits or superior rabbits.

I thought the science of genetics closed this book a long time ago! How do you explain the distict genomic similarities between like species, and how the similarities taper off as the species diverge? Is DNA just make-believe? Did god just make it look like we we’re really, really, really closely related to chimps genetically, but less related to dogs, and even less to reptiles?

It’s a testament to the corruptive and blinding power of religion in this country that so many people don’t support evolution in the face of overwhelming and completely incontrovertable, testible, repeatable and observable evidence.

Check this page out if you’re bored!


30 04 2008

No, I didn’t say darwinism is not applied to societies. I think it applies amazingly well, actually. What I said is you misunderstand ‘fittest’ as you think it means a bully is fitter than a group of people who respect one another and can therefore work together and combine their individual ‘fitnesses.’

And that’s the thing, evidence can not point towards a designer without a prior assumption of who that designer is. Design is not indicated by complexity, oftentimes it’s precisely the simplicity of a thing that makes it appear designed. Design is indicated by intent, and to see intention you have to have a conception of the mind of the designer.
A more in depth explanation of what I’m trying to say I wrote a couple of weeks ago – http://ljasonl.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/fundamental-flaw-in-intelligent-design/

30 04 2008

Oh, I didn’t see the last part. Evolution is easily falsifiable. Find one animal fossil in a rock layer that predates when it could have possibly evolved. But yet all the fossils we find are right where they should be. Another would be true ‘chimaeras’ or animals that exhibit traits from multiple lineages, like mermaids. Darwin himself wrote about ways to falsify evolution in Origin of Species.

I don’t know if this is something you yourself believe, but many creationists/IDers assert that they believe because evolution has been falsified. This is a direct contradiction to the also popular claim that evolution can not be falsified.

30 04 2008
Dave Allen

Wow. I think I might post something about this movie on my own blog just for all the hits!

I have a question for all those visiting who think that Intelligent Design is the real evil here. I personally think global healthcare is a bad idea… but I don’t go around telling people that it’s wrong to even bring it up in the discussion of how to fix healthcare coverage in America. Why do you hate the idea of coming to the question of our origin with an open mind and at least engage in a discussion as to whether there is evidence of a creator?

Like Ryan’s last post stated, you come to the debate with a preconception that there was no creator when none of us were physically present for the beginning of life. You bring your evidence, we’ll bring ours, and we’ll see whose is more convincing. The real point of this film (which I surmise most of you have not bothered to watch) is that those of us with a mind open to the idea of a creator are not being allowed to discuss our ideas.

My hunch is that there are more reasons to your abhorence to admit to the possibility of intelligent design. A fear of accountability? A drive to prove self-reliance? Something else is there. My worldview is based on a belief in the Word of God and faith that it accurately records God’s work in creation which is shown (not proven) in physical evidence today. I’ve revealed my worldview, can you reveal yours?

30 04 2008
UTURN » Blog Archive » Exposed story and discussion.

[…] View Article […]

30 04 2008
Darron S

My hunch is that there are more reasons to your abhorence to admit to the possibility of intelligent design. A fear of accountability? A drive to prove self-reliance? Something else is there.

Hey Dave! The reason is simple and was already explained above by another poster. Simply put, you cannot do valid science by supposing an unfalsifiable presupposition. That is, you can’t build an explanation based on unexplainable things. That’s why science is bottom up and not top down. You have to build the foundations of your theories based on testible, observable, repeatable evidence, and not based on things like gods or fairies or other things that are unfalsifiable.

I’m fine with people having their own faith. They simply shouldn’t try and inject it into the scientific method. There’s no room for faith there. We need facts, data, and evidence to build solid scientific theories. Anything less is a kick in the face to all that we’d accomplished as a species in understanding the natural world. Cheers!

Oh, and my worldview is that of a secular humanist. Here are the major tenents:

Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
This life – A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.



30 04 2008

Since we’re putting up links, here is a link to some scientific research done by these non-scientist:
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

30 04 2008

I simply deny that such process leads to a new species of really fast rabbits or superior rabbits.”

Darwin observed:

1. Variation in populations.
2. Unequal propagation of progeny based upon selection for or against these variants.

These are the basis of evolution.

Now you said above that “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” led to the Holocaust. Yet you seem to think that natural selection and survival of the fittest are real phenomena that we can observe, correct?

“Although you argued that evolution doesn’t make value judgments, isn’t that the idea of “evolving,” going from lesser to greater, from worse to better? I may be missing something, so I looked up the word “evolution” in the dictionary and this is what I found: “a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state.” Sounds like some sort of value judgment to me.”

Perhaps you should try looking up the *scientific* definition of evolution instead of the general definition of the term.

Evolution: The change in frequency of alleles in a population over time.

Do you see any “better” showing up there? Nope, it’s just a measurement of quantity, more of a particular allele, or less.

30 04 2008
Dave Allen

Ryan, you can decide if you want this vein continued, but since Darron brought up dating as a proof of macro-evolution, here is a site discussing flaws in various techniques for artifact dating. **Warning** This is a very dry and in depth look at the chemistry involved. It’s very interesting, but it just might put you to sleep. Have fun!


30 04 2008

Thanks for all the thoughtful comments, Nimravid. My point with natural selection and survival of the fittest is that these theories, when applied socially, lead to some very dangerous conclusions. I was not arguing for their existence as facts, but for their destructiveness as applied theories. Evolution (the science) leads to certain worldview conclusions. It gives information and ideas that lead to answers for such questions as “Why am I here?” “Where did I come from?” “What value do I have?” To say that it doesn’t lead to answers for these questions is being dishonest. In the film, through testimony of the evolutionists themselves, this point is made very clear.
I believe the answers that this theory leads to are dangerous and wrong. I believe an evolutionary view of human value and purpose leads to such atrocities as abortion and genocide.
I also believe that it stems from our fallen desires to rebel against our Creator and set us up as gods. Paul explained this entire picture in Romans 1:18-32. He wrote about it 2,000 years ago but it describes our age perfectly. It does so because it explains the human heart and that hasn’t changed (or evolved) in 2,000- it is still just as bad. However, Nimravid, there is wonderful, glorious hope for us, but it begins with humbling ourselves before this Sovereign Creator. In love, He gave His life for this fallen world that rebels against Him. He took His just judgment against us and put it on Himself. Jesus Christ died so that we might be reconciled to Him and might have a new heart that sees the beauty of His design instead of rails against it. I’m praying, Nimravid, that you come to see this hope and to love the One who made you. You’re a sharp individual and I’d love for you to put your mind to work doing that which it was designed for, knowing your God.

30 04 2008

I’ve been out on the road all day and just got back. Seems like you’ve managed to stir up some interesting controversy here while I was gone. :-)

Okay – for starters, I LOVED the movie. It was one of those breaths of fresh air from mainstream media which from the sounds of things on this board was well needed. Now, I’m not going to bore you with a rehashing of the argument for natural selection. That point has been argued well on both sides.

It think it is worth repeating however that the ID people in this film were not Christian right-wing thinkers. They were mostly professors and scientists who when faced with the modern understanding of the inner-complexity of the cell (Darwin had no clue about) and the remarkable precision of DNA that they began to consider ID as a logical/scientific conclusion for the beginning of life?

Let’s look at a few points that Darwinism can’t answer and leaves some big questions.

How about the origin of the universe?

Scientists have discovered that galaxies are moving away from each other as the very fabric of space is expanding. Because of this and other evidence, most scientists now believe that the universe (matter, energy, space, time, and the laws that govern them) exploded into existence from a
single point. Simply put, there was a beginning to the universe (the “big bang”)—and such a beginning implies a cause outside the universe that brought it into existence.

So it was something outside nature (since at the time no nature existed) that sparked the creation of nature. Now by definition that means supernature. Supernature to me is something that exists beyond the comprehension of science. (Since science is based on observations of nature.)

Something else to consider is that the resulting “explosion” did not result in random haphazard existance of nature. But rather a nature that is complex and elegant – full of laws that preserve the very nature that was created.

Scientists also have recognized the exquisite order and mathematical elegance of the physical laws governing the universe as pointing to cosmic design. As physicist Paul Davies has stated,

“The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming. The belief that there is ‘something behind it all’ is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists.”

Without intelligent design, neither the beginning of the universe nor its order and elegance have an adequate explanation.

“The harmony of natural law…reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.” – Albert Einstein

It seems to me evolution has far to many “if’s” and “leaps of faith” to accomplish what “might have happened” in order to adequetly support itself. Their one “cop out” answer is “well – with enough time.” As if any amount of time could make a rolex watch reassemble itself on its own, let alone a galaxy or a life form.

So let’s look at the Physical Universe The “Anthropic Principle” states that if the physical structure of the universe were even slightly different, life would not exist.


– If the gravitational force constant were larger by just one part in ten billion billion billion, we would be crushed out of existence.

– If the cosmological constant governing how fast the universe expands were smaller by just one part in ten followed by 120 zeros, the universe would have collapsed right after it was born.

– If the earth’s orbit were elliptical—
like most other planets—rather than circular, or if it were just a bit closer or farther away from the sun, its temperature would not stay in the very narrow range required for lifesupporting
chemical processes to function.

I love how simple minded evolutionists are.

Nothing + Time and Chance = Everything

Yeah, right. I’m sorry but from what we see in SCIENCE – nothing produces nothing. Nothing never becomes something…no matter how long you watch it.

But – with that in mind I found an interesting blog. http://nobodymadethis.blogspot.com It appears to be the first blog that acutally made itself. All things considered this should be a minor achievement in evolutionists eyes – but a pretty significant blow to ID people.

Good stuff. There is much more of course – but I’ll leave that for later.

22 05 2008
Darron S

“I love how simple minded evolutionists are. Nothing + Time and Chance = Everything”

That is simply the most ignorant statement I’ve read in this thread. First, evolution makes no claims about “how life got started” or “how the universe got started”. Evolutionary Theory explains how “existing” species change over time based on selection pressures (weather changes/predation/etc). Abiogenesis is life from non-life, and scientists freely admit we don’t have a working theory explaining it. But I promise you, biochemists around the world are working on it. I don’t think people give the potential of raw, unbridled nature the credit it deserves. Cheers!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: