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