I must confess, I haven’t seen the film yet, but I seriously doubt that Stein believes the earth to only be 6K to 10K years old. (Any thinking person, religious or not, can reconcile the biblical account with scientific fact about the theorized formation of the universe if they care to. Unfortunately, most don’t want to make the attempt, or are to closed minded to even try) The last time I looked, which was last night, science seems to “invent” things like dark matter and dark energy to explain phenomenon that don’t easily fit into the accepted physical laws of the universe. Science often asks us to believe in something we can not see, hear or measure. Darwinism is full of faith based beliefs with no scientific basis. It sounds a lot like a religion to me. So what makes scientists infallible and Christians (or buddhists or jews) perceived to be lacking in intelligence because they want to believe conscious thought went into what goes on in the universe around us, and seems to work amazing well for something that “just happened?” Could it be the simple prejudice of those who can not bear the thought of being “judged” by a higher power if it does indeed exist? I’m constantly amazed at the lack of common sense, logic and the willingness to look at alternative explanation that pervade those who consider themselves to be intellectuals.

“I’m constantly amazed at the lack of common sense, logic and the willingness to look at alternative explanation that pervade those who consider themselves to be intellectuals.”

One doesn’t need to be an intellectual to be amazed at the lack of common sense, logic displayed in your comment.

Evolutionist don’t say things “just happen”. That would be a characterization voiced by someone opposed to the entire concept of evolution.

And science doesn’t just “invent” things. Not to sound catty but perhaps you should save up some money and go to a university where you can see how science actually works and how they come up with the things they do. Maybe then you’ll be able to better understand the method behind the “madness”.
And to pre-empt any suggestion that I read up on creationism or intelligent design, trust me, I have.

I don’t believe in evolution, but I do love the environment. What is the problem?

Okay, then show me the definitive proof that dark matter and dark energy actually exist. They were, in fact, “invented” if you will, to help explain what present calculations show about the expansion of the universe and the lack of observable matter to cause such an expansion. And you don’t sound catty, you sound arrogant and ignorant. I suggest you stop being so full of yourself. Don’t presume to know my education or IQ. You’d be wrong on both counts.

And yes, evolutionists do believe that things do just happen…that new species just appear with no clear intermediates. I’m not denying evolution, it only makes sense. I just don’t believe in evolution as preached by the new revisionists of Darwin’s original conclusions. Even he acceded that there was something guiding this metamorphosis. If I create something, such as a computer operating system for example, I would design it to evolve to fit the environments it would be installed into, such as OSX or Windows goes through new releases to evolve to fit the new hardware or solve original design flaws. And as complicated as those two OS’s are, they are nothing compared to the intricacies of life, so it’s little stretch to think that it would be designed to adapt to a changing environment. A weak example I know, but I think evolution proves intelligent design instead of debunks it.

There’s a little old cartoon I clipped long ago, buried in a box somewhere… it was a teacher in front of a black board… explaining different theories on how man came about this Earth… the first was evolution, the second creationism, and the third, the UFO from The Life of Brian… and guess what… I buy into the third explanation as making the most sense… about 14.000 years ago there was a massive flood on the planet, sea level rose 200 feet, where it is today… about 40.000 years ago there was a massive shift from Neanderthal to Cro-magnon man, we still haven’t found the missing link yet… Are we the product of alien genetical manipulation? A lot of people seem to think so. So why not introduce this third theory into the school system, because that’s the one people talk about the most. And Yes, I’m a big fan of Shirley MacLaine.

But enough of this. G’ day.

I’d still like to see more facts supporting evolution. For example, why do all creatures have different number of chromosomes? Chimps have a lot more than we do, are we retarded chimps? What about the 12 step process in blood clotting? I can kind of understand how the eye could evolve, but not how blood clots. Nor do I see why we are not asexual creatures since trying to find another similar creature of the opposing gender would more than likely be a road block to natural selection. It would make it hard to replicate our own specie if we had to find a mate.

I think my husband was right, we should all just evolve into Sporlocks. (It’s a WoW thing.)

Also, it really bothered me when I read an article on physicists trying to describe the size of nothing. I thought nothing was the absence of something. On top of that, I thought that something couldn’t come from noting.

Evolution never made sense to me, especially now that I am pre-med.

“We will all laugh at you in the future just as we do the people that thought the earth was the center of the solar system.”

Your analogy is interesting but misses the point. It is the Darwinists still pushing a Victorian dogma with religious zeal whom history will judge to be a laughing stock. Darwin had justification for asking for time to answer his critics, being well aware of the serious problems which could be justifiably raised against his own theory. He devoted an entire chapter to parering over the cracks. 150 years on, there are no excuses. Dinosaurs, sorry I mean Darwinists out there – you can no longer believe the earth is flat. Start getting used to a design centred paradigm.

“Greater still, why the censorship? Is this really objectivity, or is the idea that one’s world view keeps one from allowing room for other opinions valid, particularly because of the obvious implications?”

There is currently an ominous movement within science which goes beyond the censorship we see from Darwinists. Elements within the scientific community are increasingly attempting to position science as the only legitimate source of knowledge, in the minds of the general public. Any question which does not submit to the scientific method is deemed meaningless. Science can be the only legitimate arbiter. The ultimate questions such as “is there a God?” have been relegated to the “myths and legends” section where they are guarded heavily lest they should escape and once again rise to challenge the authority of science . Ridicule is used effectively to slap anyone back into line who presents an alternative world-view.

To some extent, this monopolising stems from an arrogance within science, arising from theoretical and technical “advances” and from speculation concerning even greater future possibilities. It is also due to the self serving and self propagating nature of science. People whose status depends on their scientific work are always inclined to exaggerate the importance and scope of science, as they exaggerate the importance and potential applications of their own research.

In order to achieve this level of power, scientists need to convince us that their knowledge rests on a firm and certain foundation. The limits of science or the unprovable metaphysical assumptions are hardly discussed. Either these limitations deliberately concealed or practising scientists are genuinely ignorant about foundational issues related to their discipline. Whatever the case, the false picture of science as the repository of certain truth has been bought by a large percentage of the general public. They must be getting their ideas from somewhere.

One reason the debate is “silenced?”

The Theory of Evolution lends itself to criticism, to poking and prodding, to ensuring that it’s a “working” theory – testing itself every minute. That’s the beauty of science.

“Faith,” on the other hand, is not asking to be proven, because it can’t be. That’s the whole point of the word – to believe without proof. That’s not very academic.

Don’t tell me Intelligent Design has nothing to do with Faith; eg, things we could never find or test proof against.

Hence the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It’s simply not academic. It’s the ol’ “observable evidence” prerequisite. Gets ya every time.

Unlike evolution, ID/creationism is not a scientific theory simply because it is not falsifiable. Therefore it cannot be studied with the scientific method.

Ben Stein actually does believe in evolution , unless he lied when he said “I believe in evolution , but ….. Then he says something to the effect of evolution alone could not take us from single celled organisms to intelligent beings .Also , the “theory ” of evolution is only a theory in those terms . That evolution happens is accepted scientific fact and has been observed in bacteria and also in insects with short life spans . Scientists observing life forms with very short spans can watch natural selection change an organism over generations . This is not disputed by actual scientists of any faith , only morons on the internet .