By Juanell Garrett--Midwest Voices Columnist 2008
"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," Ben Stein's documentary about the difficulties of scientists who dare to tread off the evolutionary path, opened Friday at a few area theaters.
A review appeared in The Star's FYI section that day, one borrowed from Roger Moore of the Orlando Sentinel. His complete review didn't appear in the Star.
After reading the whole thing, I decided that Mr. Moore's one-star rating was probably due to his personal beliefs on the subject. On Yahoo, there are no critic reviews, but over six hundred Yahoo! users were giving it a B- rating as of 1:30 Saturday afternoon. Most of the couple hundred user reviews seemed to be strongly affected by the predilections (both ways) of the viewers.
I attended a Friday afternoon showing. Some on the Internet say Ben Stein fails to make the case for Intelligent Design. I think they missed the point. He's trying to show how anyone who dares to invoke the term is silenced. Contrary to what Mr. Moore said in his review, the "experts" (his quotes) didn't say they wanted to teach creation, but they do believe they should be able to point out that there is another possibility besides evolution, which remains a theory although it seems to be increasingly taught as fact.
A simple life form has 250 proteins and the human body has 100,000 proteins in each cell. Why can't anyone explain where all those proteins came from? Why are our children taught (as fact) that they evolved from some primordial soup via a lesser animal?
No one's denying that microevolution occurs. I've noticed that subsequent generations of my family are getting smarter and better-looking (fortunately for them!), but my perception may be the result of the lack of impartiality caused by becoming a mother and a grandmother.
Darwinists have a similar lack of objectivity. Their worldview requires the lack of a God, therefore they throw Him overboard in favor of a story that to this day fails to provide the answer to how life began. They have made it their business to attack religion rather than scientifically prove their own beliefs. Richard Dawkins went so far as to say that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is insane or stupid. OK, I'll seek psychiatric help just as soon as he comes up with actual proof that an inorganic crystal evolved into something resembling the complexity of my grandchildren.
Toward the end of the documentary, Dr. Dawkins was asked what he would do if at the end of life he has to face the God who he doesn't believe in. He said, referring to something that had been said by Bertram Russell, he would ask God, "Why did you take such pains to hide yourself?" Dr. Dawkins, might I suggest you're not looking very hard?
Science has another orthodoxy that its members buck at their own risk--global warming. See Mike Thompson's April 14th weather blog here.
Delicious
Digg
Who dares go against science's orthodoxy?
More to the point, who would dare question the so-called "ABSOLUTE" dating systems?
The Quest for Right, a 7-book series on origins, did and you will be amazed at the result. The scientific council's superlative, which was induced to hide the truth — after all, who would question an "absolute" —, has been assessed to be a scurrilous invective, an "abusive, offensive, even vulgar, connotation.
The terminology is not overkill; instead, it represents a reasonable evaluation. It is a matter of record that said absolutes are the tools by which obstructionists have attempted to rip apart the validity of historical documentations; specifically, that the account of creation as recorded in the Bible is pure mythology. Ironically, while the tenets of obstructionism have failed, the scientific record of creation has thus far stood undaunted against all attacks and has proven to be an invaluable asset to the investigation.
Are the dating systems accurate gauges of time, or are they merely dominos set in a row, destined to crumble along with Rutherford and Bohr's architecture of the atom? Be it known that the persuasion brandished by obstructionists, urging the reader not to trust in the scientific record of the earth's creation 6,000 years ago, is wholly dependent upon: (1) Avogadro's law; (2) the council's current evaluation of radioisotopes, (3) integrated mathematical formulae, and (4) numerous other misconceptions and invalid assumptions. -- The Quest for Right -- Continue your education.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Science is about empirically observable phenomena. It simply doesn't address, either way, anything that's non-observable, be it God or the Easter Bunny (who, for the record, I saw at the mall a month or so ago).
I mean, look at this statement -- it showcases a profound misunderstanding of science:
"Darwinists have a similar lack of objectivity. Their worldview requires the lack of a God, therefore they throw Him overboard in favor of a story that to this day fails to provide the answer to how life began."
I mean, for God's sake (pardon the phrase), but could it be any more obvious that this Midwest Voices "columnist" has no idea what science entails? Criticizing science -- which has as its purview observable nature -- for not postulating the impact of supernatural (other than observable nature) effects, is like criticizing a circle for not having angles.
Once again, I'm left wondering just what the heck are the Star's criteria for selecting these Midwest Voices columnists. Holy cow.