By Sophia lee · Daily Trojan

Posted November 3, 2009 (2 days ago) at 11:25 pm in Featured, Film, Lifestyle

With nothing but a projector screen and folding chairs, the tiny Embassy Auditorium of the Davidson Conference Center is a far cry from the 50-foot-high IMAX theater where Darwin’s Dilemma was originally scheduled to be screened. Even though the California Science Center recently backed out of its contract to host the film’s Los Angeles premiere, the tensions created by the controversial documentary’s release followed the event to its new location.

As everyone settled into their seats, the room was already bustling with conflicting opinions on Darwin’s 150-year-old theory of evolution.

“I don’t believe in this intelligent design stuff,” one attendee whispered; another gently poked fun at the idea of humans popping out of a random interaction of atoms. Even in today’s modern world, the intimate room was a clear display of the debate raised since Darwin first published The Origin of Species in 1859: Who are we and where did we come from?

The night started off with a short clip from We Are Born of Stars, the first 3-D film created for IMAX projection. Choppy, rough and with limited black-and-white computer graphics, the film provided a structural view of our essential building block of life — DNA. Unfortunately, the film was in Japanese, and those who came without a basic scientific knowledge of DNA structures were left in the dark. But this brief prelude was meant to portray the deep mystery of DNA in living creatures, which is an integral component in Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Darwin’s Dilemma, screened shortly afterwards, was a much more modern and technologically sophisticated film in comparison. The final installment of Illustra Media’s long-planned Intelligent Design trilogy, this documentary brings to light the contradiction between the fossil record and Darwin’s theories. It focuses on the Cambrian explosion, a time period in the earth’s history in which there was a sudden “explosion” of complex species without any ancestral trace.

The film can be divided into three counterarguments.

First, it states that the Cambrian explosion heavily conflicts with Darwin’s theory. According to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, every organism requires a prior ancestral form. But even Darwin admits that the fossil record below the Cambrian strata is devoid of any evidence of such creatures. How, then, did these vast and inexplicably new species suddenly appear out of nowhere?

Darwin attributed it to an incomplete fossil record, but after 150 years, scientists are still searching to fill the gap. The film goes into depth on this point, giving several reasons and evidence on the lack of Precambrian fossils that are ancestral to modern phyla in the Cambrian strata.

Next, the film questions the truth of Darwin’s theory. The graph drawn according to Darwin’s theory is very much like a tree of life, stemming up from one common species and branching into many different groups of organisms. But the film turns this graph upside down, suggesting that a basic structural form for complex life existed first, which then evolved into the differing, elaborate details.

It also gives several reasons why a gene mutation cannot be transformed into a new species, mainly because DNA is actually not responsible for the blueprint of animal development. DNA by itself cannot assemble cells, tissues, muscles and body parts. The film uses these ideas to form its final proposal: intelligent design.

Though unmistakably pro-intelligent design, Darwin’s Dilemma takes on a purposefully secular stance. The word “God” is never mentioned. Instead, less threatening euphamisms like “information source” and “designer” are used. In fact, post-screening panelist and anti-evolution activist Jonathan Wells emphasized that intelligent design is not creationism or natural theology.

“Intelligent design is not a random, convenient solution to evolution,” Wells said. “In fact, it actually opens more doors to scientific research and investigation.”

This, according to Wells, is because a lot of scientific claims come from from a preconceived “story” (Darwin’s theory), in which the scientists just plug in the “plot” (or whatever fossil they happen to find) to make the story work.

Darwin’s Dilemma is indeed an eye-opener, but it does so in an analytical and scientific way. It addresses many key points and counterarguments, providing ample evidence and support with the help of cutting-edge computer graphics and interviews from several leading scientists, some of whom are not even proponents of intelligent design.

It challenges a lot of conventional scientific ideas about evolution, including information from educational textbooks.

But does it leave the viewer with a definite conclusion to this evolution debate? The film ends appropriately with a quote from Darwin: “I can give no satisfactory answer.”

This being a controversial and emotionally charged subject, the large number and varying types of questions thrown by the audience to the post-screening panelists was not surprising. David Berlinski, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and author of numerous books such as The Devil’s Delusion, touched upon the social implications of evolution.

“Discussion and debate over evolution is not just limited to scientific issues,” he said. “It is a conflicting view of the nature of human beings, and the society that we humans want to build.”

Will the debate ever come to an end? Will we ever reach a satisfactory answer to the origins of life?

Berlinski answers, “Maybe, but probably not.”

And thus, the dilemma goes on.

Article found at: http://dailytrojan.com/2009/11/03/film-uses-science-not-religion-to-debate-darwin/

Science Darwin, Intelligent Design, Science

I’ve found that my discussions with atheists almost always lead to some type of discussion about science. For some reason atheists demand that non-atheists show scientific empirical proof to help support our position. They often demand PROOF and refuse to settle for EVIDENCE for the non-atheist position, however, they are perfectly content to settle for evidence for their position. For some reason they hold non-atheists to a higher standard then atheists – hmmmm, I wonder why.

Well, even though there is scientific evidence that points to an uncaused cause, this blog is not about science and I’m not going to provide that evidence here. We are philosophers not scientists. Atheists usually get mad when I say that, but I don’t really care. There is scientific evidence to support both positions, but the point I want to make is that atheists are notorious for ignoring the evidence that points to an intelligent source of our existence.

Atheists rely heavily on science to the point where their insistence of scientific empirical proof leads to the neglect of philosophy and logic. The problem I have with such a reliance on science (I like the way that phrase rolls off the tongue) is that science is not the end all be all of knowledge. Science is a human achievement and as such is subject to fallibility and bias.

Most modern science, unfortunately, stems from the premise that there is no supernatural uncaused cause. As such, much of science is severely biased in it’s theories and conclusions (Hawking’s model of cosmic origins is a perfect example of this – see <u>The Case for a Creator</u> by Lee Strobel pgs 102-104). In doing so it ignores any possibility of the supernatural and attempts to develop theories apart from such a claim. Any attempts to circumvent that bias is met with disdain and outright bullying. If you don’t believe me I will refer you to watch <em>Expelled</em> by Ben Stein. This is actually evident in a recent discussion I had on an anti-theist blog when an atheists who was debating me made the comment that “creationism is solely a religious claim”.

This is precisely why we need philosophy and logic. Logic has absolutes. When followed those absolutes help lead science to very different conclusions about our universe. When ignored, science becomes somewhat of a joke with every so called scientist just making up whatever he/she wants that will help advance their world view. With the ever growing chorus of anti-god sentiment, I’m afraid that other voices are being drowned out.

I would recommend for further reading/study Dr. Michio Kaku who, in a recent seminar on “The Theory of Everything”, stated: <em>”we are on the verge of seeing the mind of god”</em>. Dr. Kaku’s study of string theory has lead him to conclusions that are foreign to what most scientists once believed and still believe about origins.

On a more personal note, for those who are reading this and assuming that I am a Christian, one does not have to be Christian to assert that there could be an uncaused cause. There are many philosophers and scientists who have come to a religious belief in a god through their studies of science and philosophy.

Science atheism and science, evidence vs. proof, Science, scientific bias, scientific evidence

The New State Religion: Atheism
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

It seems that atheism has become the official stance of America’s school system. One way in which many schools and teachers are attempting to indoctrinate students is by the use of new terms to hide the actual intent of the policy maker. For example, the current euphemism for an atheist is a nontheist or naturalist. Even if a naturalistic explanation is not true, scientists must still try to explain all events from this worldview. That the atheistic belief structure is the norm in science was forcefully brought out by Nobel Laureate Weinberg as follows:

Among today’s scientists, I am probably somewhat atypical in caring about such things [as God]. . . . on matters of religion, the strongest reaction expressed by most of my fellow physicists is a mild surprise and amusement that anyone still takes all that seriously. Many physicists maintain a nominal affiliation with the faith of their parents . . . but few . . . pay any attention to their nominal religion’s theology…. Most physicists today are not sufficiently interested in religion to even qualify as practicing atheists.[1]

In Carl Sagan’s words, the cosmos—the physical universe—”is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”[2] No Gods, angels, devils, or other spirit creatures exist—only that which scientists can measure with their instruments—which means they believe that only the visible, physical, tangible, universe exists. Of course, these scientists have a belief structure, which Harvard’s Stephen J. Gould notes includes the conclusion that humans are “. . . a wildly improbable evolutionary event . . .”[3] and “. . . a cosmic accident . . .”[4] and that if the evolutionary tape were played again and again, humans would not be expected—even if it were replayed a million times or more. This worldview stands in direct contrast to the creationist’s belief that humans were fashioned for a purpose. The dominant view of naturalistic scientists is that we are only “a detail” of history and do not exist for a purpose. [5] The only purpose of life, they teach, is that which we arbitrarily give to it if we so choose. Gould feels that it liberates us to give life any purpose we want which, he believes, is not nihilistic, because it offers us “maximum freedom to thrive, or to fail, in our own chosen way.”[6] The religious worldview, in contrast, believes that some morals and values are superior to others and, in the long run, living a moral God-fearing life is most conducive to happiness. This conclusion has been well documented by empirical research.[7]

Knowing that their functional atheism could hinder them from obtaining grants or public support, scientists often skip around these conclusions in their writing and teaching. Some, though, are open and honestly reveal their atheism. One example is William B. Provine, professor of biological science at Cornell. He notes that at the beginning of his class about 75% of his students “were either creationists or believed in purposive evolution” guided by God or a divine power. Research on his incisive, direct, hard-hitting teaching on origins (how students often describe his lectures) reveals that the number of creationists and those who “believed in purposive evolution” dropped to about 50% by the end of the course.[8] No one has hauled him into court for his openly indoctrinating students in atheism, and indeed, scientists in general have applauded him.

Scientists generally not only support Provine’s one-sided teaching but are determined not to allow the other side in the classroom. Further, scientific orthodoxy teaches that human existence has no God-given purpose, but is a chance event, a blip on the radar screen in the infinity of time. No God had any part in the creation. The authors of one of the leading biology textbooks openly state:

Darwin compiled enough support for his theory of descent with modification to convince most of the scientists of his day that organisms evolve without supernatural intervention. Subsequent discoveries, including recent ones from molecular biology, further support this great principle—one that connects an otherwise bewildering chaos of facts about organisms.[9]

This view has the backing of the scientific community and the state, and attempts by professors to discuss favorably another view, when challenged by the university or state, have in the past proved ultimately futile.[10] [11]

It is obvious that an attempt to censor the teaching of “the other side of atheism” in the college classroom is nothing more than a blatant attempt to insure that only one side of the controversy is presented. Those professors whom the nontheistic naturalistic evolutionists believe will influence the students in a positive direction toward theism are often fired, censored, or “reassigned.”

If naturalistic evolution is true, why do its true believers have to use political or bullying tactics to quiet creationists (as this author knows from personal experience)? Why do they censor evidence in favor of creationism in textbooks, and intimidate creationist students and teachers to accept the evolutionist party line under penalty of failure, dismissal, or worse? The reason must be that nontheists have determined (for deeply held philosophical reasons) that others must be taught to believe as they do and accept only atheism or naturalism in science.

Another more important reason may be their intolerance toward creationists. Those who criticize creationists rarely define the term. A creationist is one who believes that God created or directed the creation of the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. [12] The core of the opposition of universities and the state is against any theistic worldview. The writer has yet to find, in a review of dozens of college biology textbooks for class selection, a single one in the past decade or more that espouses or objectively discusseseven theistic evolution in a positive way, let alone special creation. Even the idea of progress is anathema in biology:

If evolution is held to be progressive, then it is all too easy to see it as being directed, following an arrow of improvement through time. And that is all too redolent of the notion of “divine” design of pre-Darwinian days…. “There is a profound unwillingness to abandon a view of life as predictable progress . . . because to do so would be to admit that human existence is nothing but a historical accident. That is difficult for many to accept.” [13]

And as Gould stresses, the very idea of progress is a “noxious” idea in biology that must be avoided, because it hints that God exists, something that the science establishment cannot stomach. Conversely, he views human consciousness as a “quirky accident” that just happened. [14] No wonder one who believes that life has a divine purpose and that a creator God exists is so poorly tolerated and not to be trusted in the classroom. An unbiased viewpoint forces the conclusion that America has now adopted a state religion, supported by billions of tax dollars and enforced by the power of law. That state religion is atheism.

Many scientists are decidedly not neutral on the topic of God. Eminent scientist, Oxford University zoologist, and author Richard Dawkins openly says that his best selling book, The Selfish Gene,

. . . brings home to people the truth about why they exist, something they previously took for granted. No one had given them such a ruthless, starkly mechanistic, almost pointless answer. “You are for nothing. You are here to propagate your selfish genes. There is no higher purpose to life.” One man said he didn’t sleep for three nights after reading The Selfish Gene. He felt that the whole of his life had become empty, and the universe no longer had a point. Another way of putting it is of people losing religious faith. People now felt they understood what it was all about, where previously they had been fobbed off with religious pseudo-answers. [15]

And as to the effect of evolution on the development of Dawkins’ ideas, he makes it clear:

It was a mind-blowing experience to discover Darwinism and realize there were alternative explanations for all the questions with traditional religious answers. I became irritated at the way the religious establishment has a stranglehold over this kind of education. Most people grow up and go through their lives without ever really understanding Darwinism. They spend enormous amounts of time learning church teachings. This annoys me, out of a love of truth. To me, religion is very largely an enemy of truth. [16]

Dawkins is very open about his views—all theism is to be condemned, including theistic evolution. How effective has been what now amounts to a relentless campaign to banish any support of the theistic worldview in our public schools and colleges? Eugenie Scott, the leader of the world’s largest organization dedicated to advancing naturalism and counteracting the work of creationists bemoaned, “. . . maybe there is something we can do to raise our esprit de corps. . . . it’s tough out here in the trenches where 49% of American adults think man was created in his present form 10,000 years ago.”[17]

While some allege that there is no conflict between theism and Darwinism, the fact is that the majority of leading evolutionists are atheists, or at best nontheists for whom God is irrelevant to their daily lives and their views about the natural world and the universe.[18] In an extensive study of scientists, Roe found in her sample of sixty-four eminent scientists that only three were actively involved in a church and “all of the others have long since dismissed religion as any guide to them, and church plays no part in their lives….”[19]

Probably a majority of evolutionists would agree with Julian Huxley’s pronouncement that “Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the Creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion.” Others might go further and accept the Dawkinsian view that the idea of a Creator is refuted by our human inability to account for His origin. A minority might echo Ashley Montagu’s statement that “There is no incompatibility between belief in God and the belief that evolution is the means by which all living things have come into being.” But I suspect they would, in some cases at least, echo it with more than trace of tongue-in-cheek![20]

When one compares the pessimistic, nihilistic worldview that evolution teaches—that life has no purpose or reason—with the Judeo-Christian worldview that men and women are a special creation of a loving, caring God who provides for them and will guide them through the trials and travails of life, a God whose love for us is so great that He created the universe and all of its wonders specifically for our benefit and has given us the opportunity of everlasting life in paradise, it is obvious why most Americans prefer the latter view. In Scott’s words, “I have been saying for years that the reason creationists can win the allegiance of some of the general public is that all we scientists do is present evidence, but creationists go after the heart and soul. In the words of Tom Lehrer, ‘They have all of the good songs.’” [21]

References:

• S. Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory; The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature (Pantheon Books, New York, 1992), pp. 256-257.
• [C. Sagan, Cosmos (Random House, New York, 1980) p. 4.
• [S. Gould, Wonderful Life; The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History (W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1989), p. 291.
• Ibid., p. 44.
• Ibid., p. 291.
• Ibid., p. 323.
• Harold Cox and Andre Hammonds, “Religiosity, Aging, and Life Satisfaction” in Journal of Religion and Aging 5(1/2) 1-21 (1989).
• [W. Provine, Creation/Evolution 32, 62-63 (1993).
• N. Campbell, L. Mitchell and J. Reece. Biology: Concepts and Connections (Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., Redwood City, CA, 1994), p. 258.
• Bishop V. Aaronov, 723 F. supp. 1562 (ND Ala 1990).
• P. Johnson, “The Creationist and the Sociobiologist: Two Stories About Illiberal Education,” California Law Review 80 (4) 1071-1090 (1992).
• P. E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Regnery Gateway, Washington, D.C., 1991).
• R. Lewin, “A Simple Matter of Complexity” in New Scientist 141 (1994) 40.
• Ibid., p. 40.
• R. Dawkins, “Interview” in Omni 12 (4) (Jan. 1990) 60-61.
• Ibid., p. 87.
• E. Scott, “Good Songs” in Science 263 (5154) Jan. 21, 1994), 310.
• Gilson, Robert J., Evolution in a New Light: The Outworking of Cosmic Imaginism (Pelegrin Trust, Norwich, England, 1992), 68.
• Roe, Anne, The Making of a Scientist (Dodd, Mead, and Company, New York, 1953), 62.
• Ref. No. 18, p. 68.
• Ref. No. 17, p. 310.

*Dr. Bergman is on the science faculty at Northwest State College, Ohio.

This article was found at: http://www.icr.org/article/new-state-religion-atheism/

Atheism as a Religion, Science

A Special Thank You from David Berlinski

As one of the scholars who has been “expelled” by the scientific community for espousing heretical doubts about Darwin, I’d like to say: Thank you. Thank you for having the chutzpah to stand up for your fellowheretics by signing Discovery Institute’s Academic Freedom Petition (www.academicfreedompetition.com). 

 

Although Darwinism is very often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing
that gravity is as well established as evolution. They know better and they are not stupid.

Among evolutionary biologists, the problems with Darwin’s theory are well known. In the privacy of the
faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests.

“Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once remarked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.”

Alas,

Darwin’s theory serves as the creation myth of our time, and it demands an especially militant form of advocacy, as anyone can attest who has had the misfortune to pick up such churlish volumes as The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins or Letter to a Christan Nation by Sam Harris. In the view of these modern witch-hunters, anyone who disagrees with Darwin must be burned at the stake.

That is why I so value my friends at Discovery Institute, who have supported my research and writing for nearly a decade now. Discovery Institute serves as the international hub for scientists and other intellectuals
who are raising serious doubts about Darwin’s theory, including scholars who are are making sophisticated arguments for the theory of intelligent design. The fact that the Institute has been vilified by all the right people is a special sort of satisfaction to me.

I am writing you this note because I hope you might be willing to open your pocketbook–even in this time of economic distress–to support the Institute’s important work.

Unlike the Darwinists, the dedicated scientists and staff of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture receive no taxpayer funds. They rely instead on support from private donors who aren’t afraid to support intellectual freedom. Next year they can use a lot of help, because 2009 is the bicentennial of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of On the Origin of Species.  The usual suspects (Dawkins, Harris, et. al.) will be out in force peddling their wares. But with your help, Discovery Institute would like to use the Darwin anniversaries to spark a genuine debate about the growing scientific challenges to Darwinism. With your help, the Institute can:

I hope you can join the heresy and help us out. You won’t be disappointed. You can donate easily and securely through PayPal by clicking here.

Au Revoir,
David

P.S. For a gift of $50 or more, Discovery Institute will send you The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski, a DVD featuring an hour-long conversation with me about the accumulated failures of Darwin’s theory. For a gift of $200 or more, you will receive the DVD plus a hardcover copy of my recent book The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions (while supplies last).

Emails Received, In The News, Science darwin myth, darwin's dilemma, darwinism, David Berlinski, discovery institute, expelled

“Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”

[Scott C. Todd, "A View from Kansas on that Evolution Debate," Nature Vol. 401, Sep. 30, 1999, p. 423]

Quotable Quotes, Science