PBS station cancels intelligent-design film
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
I am always suspicious of statements such "the scientific community overwhelmingly rejects creationism" That is PureBS. Have they ever asked every single scientist out there their opinion? No they haven't. Any honest scientist will admit that it is evolution that is the invalid theory. It is such a bankrupt theory. Those who still cling to it are the same as those who wanted to keep people in the 'dark ages'. How does evolution explain the information that is required to create and maintain living organisms.?
You could have have all the necessary elements to make a car such as steel, rubber etc. piled all together, but without a designer and manufacturer there would be no car. :bannana:
Living organisms are far more complex than a car. For example a car has no self repair capabilities. I am sure many of us wished our cars could repair themselves, that would be nice.:
You could have have all the necessary elements to make a car such as steel, rubber etc. piled all together, but without a designer and manufacturer there would be no car. :bannana:
Living organisms are far more complex than a car. For example a car has no self repair capabilities. I am sure many of us wished our cars could repair themselves, that would be nice.:
Greywolf
New member
What makes you say that?
Do you realize that when one takes a survey, that one does not necessarily question every last constituent of the target demographic?
They will? Believe it or not, a very large majority of scientists support the theory of evolution, approximately 95% of them, a number that rises to about 97% when you look at just the biologists.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
Even the ICR says that a majority of scientist support evolution (in case you were worried about bias).
http://www.icr.org/bible/bhta34.html
What makes you think that?
Like what?
Do you think that all instances of organization are due to the involvement of a conscious "organizer"?
I'd buy one.
Last edited:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
aharvey,
In response to your post #14, you quoted Knight saying
Lastly, the video is very well done, I have it myself and have watched it several times. It make no religious claims what so ever, it even mentions the issue about the religious implications and says that such concerns although reasonable, are not warranted. One statement openly recognized that the topic may hold some metaphysical implications, but concerning the scientific process, let the facts dictate true science, not speculation and unrealistic theories.
Then you quoted Knight
Origination of life is connected
to it's nature and diversification
As an interesting bit of fascinating information, it's a bit ironic don't you think, that Darwin's origin of species NEVER ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF HOW LIFE ORIGINATED. Try as he might, his theory did not lend itself well to the origination of life. Apparently this gap of information ate at Darwin but he never published his view on the matter, subsequently his only writing about it was in a letter to a friend/college explaining how life may have been first conceived on this planet. But it is more like science fiction than it is science.
Irreducible complexity
and Darwin's confession
Let me see if I can reproduce some of Darwin's views and a confession that his theory would prove worthless if the mechanism for evolution was shown to be wrong. Because I could not remember them sufficiently, I plugged in the video, so here's some "interesting" quotes.
Microbiology is highlighted as one of the main bodies of scientific learning against evolutionary explanations, and specifically because of the idea of "irreducible complexity". It seems that the more we know about a living cell for example and it's inner workings, the more we know that chance or random naturalistic explanations are unfitting. In fact, with the recent advances in DNA research and scientific knowledge, one of the leading chemical evolutionistic theoreticians and writers, Dean Kenyon sprouted wings and flew on over to the ID camp! How do you explain life at the cellular level without DNA which seems both crucial to life and serves up nothing but fresh hot "information" for how things should be run. It was the challenge of explaining the origins of DNA material and it's unique properties of being responsible for cellular replication among other things that finally represented the intellectual breaking point for Kenyon. Irreducible complexity of all individual molecular machines combined with the unmistakably complex information found in the DNA discovered by modern biology serve well to dismantle Darwinian evolution as the model for biology, yet most agree that natural selection is responsible for some small scale variation, but does not explain the vast majority of the diversity of life. Again, it only favors functional advantages and as such you cannot approach molecular machines, which naturally provide a functional advantage only after they are fully built and functional. So Darwinism can not get you new forms of life, it can only get you some modifications that already exist or can be expressed because of already existent genetic variation.
In response to your post #14, you quoted Knight saying
and then you said
I believe that by strict definition, ID is religiously neutral. I also believe that if you introduce discussion that speaks of a supernatural creator, whether for or against, that would be theistic info. But to the point, there are numerous suggestions for who the creator of life was on our planet. I have heard from a different source that some suggest that it may not have been God, but rather simply a higher life form from an outer space visitor if you will. You need not know who the intellect was in order to understand and accept ID.
Lastly, the video is very well done, I have it myself and have watched it several times. It make no religious claims what so ever, it even mentions the issue about the religious implications and says that such concerns although reasonable, are not warranted. One statement openly recognized that the topic may hold some metaphysical implications, but concerning the scientific process, let the facts dictate true science, not speculation and unrealistic theories.
Then you quoted Knight
and then you said
It is about both, that intelligent design seems to be on the table again in terms of explaining the origins of life. Plus the deficit of Darwinian evolution is discussed and revealed where or how it is not supported by science. I believe that Knight meant to say, It simply makes a strong argument against the standard evolutionary theory. The context even within that single sentence seems pretty obvious.
Origination of life is connected
to it's nature and diversification
As an interesting bit of fascinating information, it's a bit ironic don't you think, that Darwin's origin of species NEVER ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF HOW LIFE ORIGINATED. Try as he might, his theory did not lend itself well to the origination of life. Apparently this gap of information ate at Darwin but he never published his view on the matter, subsequently his only writing about it was in a letter to a friend/college explaining how life may have been first conceived on this planet. But it is more like science fiction than it is science.
Irreducible complexity
and Darwin's confession
Let me see if I can reproduce some of Darwin's views and a confession that his theory would prove worthless if the mechanism for evolution was shown to be wrong. Because I could not remember them sufficiently, I plugged in the video, so here's some "interesting" quotes.
And that is one notorious feature of evolution, it is an extremely slow process. He also said.
Of note, natural selection is more of a negative process, it mostly eliminates what is not beneficial. Charles Darwin also said
And that was apparently the focus of Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's black box".
Microbiology is highlighted as one of the main bodies of scientific learning against evolutionary explanations, and specifically because of the idea of "irreducible complexity". It seems that the more we know about a living cell for example and it's inner workings, the more we know that chance or random naturalistic explanations are unfitting. In fact, with the recent advances in DNA research and scientific knowledge, one of the leading chemical evolutionistic theoreticians and writers, Dean Kenyon sprouted wings and flew on over to the ID camp! How do you explain life at the cellular level without DNA which seems both crucial to life and serves up nothing but fresh hot "information" for how things should be run. It was the challenge of explaining the origins of DNA material and it's unique properties of being responsible for cellular replication among other things that finally represented the intellectual breaking point for Kenyon. Irreducible complexity of all individual molecular machines combined with the unmistakably complex information found in the DNA discovered by modern biology serve well to dismantle Darwinian evolution as the model for biology, yet most agree that natural selection is responsible for some small scale variation, but does not explain the vast majority of the diversity of life. Again, it only favors functional advantages and as such you cannot approach molecular machines, which naturally provide a functional advantage only after they are fully built and functional. So Darwinism can not get you new forms of life, it can only get you some modifications that already exist or can be expressed because of already existent genetic variation.
When you but consider the majestic complexity involved in biology, and that each and every one of us all started out as a tiny microscopic single cell team from mother and father who's main feature was being a storehouse of DNA from each parenting host, and then from that information, you underwent a replication process and multiplied until you were formed into being a little baby that would end up growing as you did. It's mind boggling when you think of it.
Last edited:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Last edited:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Ok, but as a conservative, I do not take too much of a Chill Pill. Overdosing can make one apathetic and slow. I'll just try on some naturally derived patience, even if it isn't as sedating as a chill pill. I'm not impatiently awaiting an answer, I believe the facts speak pretty loudly on they're own, so I can easily wait.
