Ben Stein, Evolution & Film


I just came across this at WND, a new documentary film featuring Ben Stein is scheduled for release early in 2008. The film, called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed , tackles the growing problem of un-diversity when it comes to the education of children in schools and the persecution of those who disagree with ‘big science.’ Says WND:

In the movie, Stein, who is also a lawyer, economist, former presidential speechwriter, author and social commentator, is stunned by what he discovers – an elitist scientific establishment that has traded in its skepticism for dogma. Even worse, say publicists for the feature film, “along the way, Stein uncovers a long line of biologists, astronomers, chemists and philosophers who have had their reputations destroyed and their careers ruined by a scientific establishment that allows absolutely no dissent from Charles Darwin’s theory of random mutation and natural selection.”

For example:

As “Expelled’s” official website asks: “What freedom-loving student wouldn’t be outraged to discover that his high school science teacher is teaching a theory as indisputable fact, and that university professors unmercifully crush any fellow scientists who dare question the prevailing system of belief? This isn’t the latest Hollywood comedy; it’s a disturbing new documentary that will shock anyone who thinks all scientists are free to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.”


For example, Stein meets Richard Sternberg, a double Ph.D. biologist who allowed a peer-reviewed research paper describing the evidence for intelligence in the universe to be published in the scientific journal Proceedings. Shortly after publication, officials from the National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution, where Sternberg was a research fellow, began a coordinated smear-and-intimidation campaign to get the promising young scientist fired. The attack on scientific freedom was so egregious that it prompted a congressional investigation.

In the film, Stein meets other scientists like astrobiologist Guillermo Gonzalez, who was denied tenure at Iowa State University in spite of an extraordinary record of achievement. Gonzalez made the mistake of documenting the design he has observed in the universe. And there are others, like Caroline Crocker, a brilliant biology teacher at George Mason University who was forced out of the university for briefly discussing problems with Darwinian theory and for telling the students that some scientists believe there is evidence of design in the universe.

This is exactly the problem I have been documenting. Darwinists want the right to teach their dogma, and only a few really deny they have a right to (I’m not one of them), but they want no one to challenge the premises of that dogma. Those who do challenge are often labeled in various ways from ‘believers in fairy-tales’ to ‘stupid Creationists’ to ‘uneducated Christians.’

Now I am not advocating the film. I am illustrating the point: IF evolution, Darwinism, is such a sound doctrine, why is no one allowed to challenge it? Why can’t it’s premises, which ARE NOT sound be uncovered? Why are alternative theories not permitted to be taught: AND PLEASE SPARE ME THE BS ABOUT THIS BEING SCIENCE BUILT ON FACT AND ‘ALTERNATIVES’ BEING RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE. We all know now that Darwinism is just as much a religion as Christianity. It is ignorant denial to say that it isn’t. (It is also just as naive to say that Darwinism doesn’t necessitate atheism or at least lead in that direction or at least facilitate it.)

If those who believe in evolution should have the right to have their theory taught, then why shouldn’t others have the right to have their theory taught regardless of what the theory entails? Teaching a theory that contains religious ideas is not even close to ‘making a law establishing religion.’ And despite what Darwinists say, their evidence is just sketchy at best. It remains an elusive theory, not remotely close to a proven fact, even though Darwinists would have us believe it is settled science.

I’m not even saying I want Scripture taught in school. I can handle that on my own, within my own family, within my own church. What I am saying to Darwinists who insist on teaching their insipid, foundation-less, theories and dogmas is this: If you have rights, so do the rest of us. You should be no more privileged than any of the rest of us. If you have a right to teach your beliefs, so do we. If you have a right to have your children taught ‘facts’ then the rest of us have a right to have those ‘facts’ challenged by other ‘facts’. I don’t understand why Darwinists feel they should have more of a right to teach their beliefs than anyone else should to teach theirs. Talk about inequality! Talk about one-sided hypocrisy! Talk about zealotry! I don’t understand what Darwinists are afraid of, but I have a feeling that this new film will educate me. What Darwinists want is compliance. They don’t want challenge because they know when the challenges are mounted their theory will crumble.

Or, they will say things like, “Oh, you just don’t understand how evolution works.” Riiiiiiiiiiightttttttttt!

If we live in America, then all Americans should be entitled to the same information: Not just one side of the story. If we live in America, then we live in a place where people should be educated to make a rational choice. We do not live in a place where we forcibly indoctrinate people to believe nonsense regardless of whether that nonsense is Darwinism or something vaguely labeled ‘religion.’ We should educate people to make a choice based on all possible evidence, of all possibly ideas. (PS–ALSO DO ME THE FAVOR OF NOT TELLING ME THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR CREATION.)



75 thoughts on “Ben Stein, Evolution & Film

  1. You better get over to the movie’s blog page and give poor old Ben a little support. I read some of the comments people were leaving, and they weren’t too kind to him.

    Serves him right, though, for lending support of any kind to the creationist nonsense known as intelligent design.

    In fact, I was going to give him my 2 cents worth for siding with a pseudoscience only religious fanatics support (I’m sorry–What is your blog about, again?) until I saw that so many other had beat me to the punch.

  2. Folks, the classroom is not a good place for scientific debate. The vast majority of scientist support the theory of evolution, and by vast I do mean vast . Most people who don’t, do so due to politics. Those of the church and of the state. The arguements being made against it are generaly bad. For instance the claim that things can’t evolve on theyre own and can only break down and become simple- due to earth being a closed system. Its not, we have a sun. It gives off radiation… point is, we need to teach good science to our kids, and leave this crap out of the classroom.

    I know the effect bad science can have on students. I went to school in kansas in 1999, the year evolution was outlawed. I had to learn it on my own, as an adult. Even earth science was affected, the teacher wasn’t allowed to state the age of the earth, even had to fast forward past commentary on the formation of the grand canyon in a pbs tape.

    I like Ben, but his political views sometimes get in the way of his objectionalism, and he’s no scientist. His field of expertise is political science. He’s misguided.

    Why is it that conservative and reform jews can accept evolution – going as far as giving surmans in its name, yet so many christians cannot- while using the same book. You cannot argue that they know not the material, for they read it in its orriginal language. It’s time everyone moved on, and accepted the workings of this universe as they truly are. Only then can you understand divinity. Knowledge of the universe should give one knowledge of its maker. How can that go wrong?

  3. Kevin,

    It can go wrong because we live in a fallen world. Further, it can go wrong because the universe does not display adequate knowledge of its Maker. That is, it does not display salvation knowledge: You cannot be saved from sin by staring at a tree or saving an endangered bird or by noticing a constellation. Finally, the Bible says God created. It does not say God used evolutionary processes. There is a huge difference between these two ideas and I have demonstrated here how those two ideas are simply incompatible. The one who believes in evolution has been blinded by the god of this age. Nice try.


  4. “What I am saying to Darwinists who insist on teaching their insipid, foundation-less, theories and dogmas is this: If you have rights, so do the rest of us.”

    No you do not, simply because Creationism, Intelligent Design, or whatever terms the Religious right tries desperately to pass off as science will never be a science, but a big, lovely, immaculate example of pseudoscience.

    I think you need some basic scientific education. Something that the entire Scientific community openly embraces is the absence of fact. In science, there is no such thing as “facts,” or “indisputable truths.” Yes, theories exist, and scientists have the utmost confidence and faith in their theories, but an entire century’s worth of support for a theory can be falsified by a single deviation.

    Example: Newton’s theory of gravitation has been falsified. Though the theory is still widely used (for instance, Newton’s ideas and formulas are used for construction of roller coasters), the very principles of the theory have since been replaced by Einstein’s relativity. How was it falsified? The precession of Mercury did not match the time predicted by Newtonian Gravitation–by 40 seconds. Understand? Hundreds of years of support could not overthrow 40 seconds of inconsistency. That is how fragile science is, and THAT is why theories such as Darwin’s Theory of Evolution hold such reverence in the Scientific Community.

    The preponderance of evidence for Evolution is overwhelming, while the evidence for Creationism/Intelligent Design is absolutely zilch. Example: Darwin’s theory of evolution deals with accumulated change over time. Evidence for his theory is found in a variety of sources, such as homologous structures in animals (the bone structures in human hands, seal fins, bat wings are identical), vestigial structures (things species no longer use today but were used by ancestors, such as molar teeth in bats or a tale bone in humans, or leg bones in whales), and, my favorite, stunning fetal similarities. If evolution is not supported, and the theory of species sharing common ancestry does not have backing, then explain this to me: why do fetal pigs, humans, and lemur’s both look nearly identical? Why do human hands, as a fetus, develop webbing between the fingers? COMMON ANCESTRY, it all leads back to that.

    Which brings me back to Creationism/Intelligent Design. Nowhere can you find evidence of these theories, and in no way can you reproduce the circumstances surrounding it. Bacteria is actually the easiest way to observe evolutionary ideas. Subject a bacteria to a vaccine, and they die. Allow the bacteria to grow back, and once again use the vaccine. Two or three bacterium survive. Survive? how is this possible? because those bacterium have a random genetic mutation that make them impervious to the vaccine. That is adaptation and a wonderful example of evolution (by the way, are you the type who believes that Darwin argued that humans evolved from apes? if you are, then we need to talk).

    But again, back to I.D./Creationism. How can you replicate God creating the Earth? Truth is, you can’t. Your entire hypothesis (it’s NOT a theory) relies on what the first couple pages of a book tell you. With that rational, I can argue that Santa Claus visits houses around the country, simply because “The Night Before Christmas” describes a trip to a house by Santa.

    I.D./Creationism is not concise. It does not feature a preponderance of evidence. Its results can, in no way, be repeated; therefore, it is NOT a science, but a pseudoscience.

    And this leads me to why I.D./C. has no right in the classroom. The argument we always hear from supporters of the two hypotheses is that “it is only fair to teach them, considering science classes already teach evolution.” Well, is it fair to teach children unsupported and therefore faulty science? Is it fair to deviate from the subject at hand and teach to a religious code? It is fair, basically, to teach your students a lie? Just as a History professor would be chastised for disproving the Holocaust, so would a Science teacher in teaching I.D./C.

    I’ll leave you with this quotation, from a brilliant Professor at the college I attend. Discussing the recent visit of Internationally renowned scientist Eugenie C. Scott, and her defense of evolution, he had this to say, “A lack of understanding of the way Science is done and what it means has led to a lot of the problems and the criticisms of evolution.”

  5. RU Joking,

    Thank you for being yet another in a long list of people who are truly unable to think about anything except that which you have learned from a couple pages in a book by a man. Fact is, you cannot replicate evolution in a lab anymore than I can replicate creation.

    Oh, Creation doesn’t pretend to be science. I never argued that it did. On the other hand, evolution does pretend to be science, and it also denies being a religion. On both counts it is wrong.

    I also appreciate that you seem to think that because I believe in Creation and not evolution that somehow this means I don’t have rights. That’s real nice and goes a long way to showing how intellectually unstable Darwinism is: You are terrified of those things that challenge your pathetic, unstable presuppositions and assumptions.

    Sorry serious, but your arguments are bunk.


    ps–I would argue, in agreement, that we do have a common ancestor: Adam & Eve. But they were not apes.

    pps–The truth is that we do understand how science works and that is precisely one of the reasons why evolution is rejected. It is simply not science in the strictest definitions of science.

  6. Ok Jerry, I am trying very hard to understand you here. You claim that my arguments are “bunk” when I offered evidence to support my arguments, yet…you did not offer any evidence to support your OWN arguments. Am I missing something here?

    Please answer these questions for me, Jerry, because I am very curious how you came to such conclusions:

    How is it that scientists are unable to replicate evolution in a lab? Is my example of bacteria somehow now applicable?

    If Creationism does not pretend to be a science, than why do religious leaders attempt to have it taught in science classes?

    How is evolution NOT a science? If you are as well versed in science as you claim, then you will have no problem explaining why evolution is “rejected,” and how it is “simply not a science in the strictest definitions of science.”

    In what way does evolution qualify as a religion? (when answering this, I hope you realize that the Herbert Spencer’s hypothesis of Social Darwinism could not be further from Charles’ theory)

  7. RU,

    I see you are on a first name basis with Charles. Glad to know that.

    I’m not having this conversation again. My point of view is well documented at this blog. The short answer to how I came to such ‘conclusions’ is as follows: I believe in Creation by God in 6 days.

    Furthermore, nowhere on this blog have I advocated teaching creation in schools. I have advocated pointing out the logical, scientific, and philosophical errors of Darwinism of which there are many.

    You are a blind fool if you think Social Darwinism is not a logical necessity of Darwin’s theory. Just like standing on earth is a logical necessity of the theory of gravity.

    Thanks for stopping by.

  8. “I have advocated pointing out the logical, scientific, and philosophical errors of Darwinism of which there are many.”

    If there are so many, than you should have no problem listing just a couple here for everyone’s convenience, or, if your “arguments” are so well documented, provide a link, so I can take another plunge into the ignorance this site relishes in.

    “You are a blind fool if you think Social Darwinism is not a logical necessity of Darwin’s theory.”

    No, I am somebody who understand evolution in the way that is is MEANT to be understood.

    A brief history lesson for you. Herbert Spencer, a sociologist, popularized the term “Social Darwinism,” an idea that the strongest, most powerful members of a species overwhelm and squash the inferior members, leading to their dominance. DARWIN NEVER CREATED NOR SUPPORTED THIS IDEA. This hypothesis, unfortunately, has led to an incredible misunderstanding of Darwin’s term “survival of the fittest,” and you sir are inexplicably part of that camp.

    Darwin never argued that the biggest, fastest, strongest members of a species will be the ones to succeed. Rather, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection follows as this: members of a species inherit traits in a process known as natural selection. At times, a member will inherit a favorable trait, or, adaptation, to its environment, giving it a unique advantage over other members of the species. It is the most “fit” to survive among its species based on that adaptation. Notice: “fit” as in appropriate, proper; not “fit” as in muscular, toned.

    An excellent example that many scientists use is Giraffes. A giraffe did not consciously stretch its neck to reach the leaves on trees. Instead, giraffe offspring were produced whose favorable traits gave them longer necks and access to higher branches on trees. And so is the process of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

    Giraffe A mates with Giraffe B, producing Giraffe C. Giraffe C inherits the favorable traits, or, ADAPTATIONS, of A and B, giving it a NATURALLY longer neck. Giraffe C, as a result, is the most FIT to survive in its given environment, meaning the most appropriate and the best suited, considering the longer neck will give it access to leaves other Giraffe’s cannot reach.

    THIS is evolution by natural selection. Learn it well.

  9. OK. Let me try again. I don’t care. But since you are obviously not going to shut up…

    1. Where did the information come from to begin with?

    2. Uh, I don’t think you understand ‘Social Darwinism.’ I never suggested Darwin invented it. It is a logical progression from one point to another. It is evident in such people’s lives as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, and exported by such journals as Psychology Today. It informs such practices as abortion, eguenics and euthanasia. You should read a little more. It is also a huge support plank of the pathetic atheism of Richard Dawkins and others. Read up Johnny!

    3. There is no such thing as evolution (except in the theoretical, philosophical, or social sense.) So whether you understand how it works or not is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I understand how animation works, this does not mean cartoon characters are real. (For the record, I’m quite well aware of ‘how’ evolution ‘works.’ This is a serious reason why I reject it out of hand as hogwash, balderdash, and irrelevance.)

    4. If you are truly interested in learning about all the errors of Darwinism, I’ll supply you with a modest list of resources. You could try (which is linked in my blogroll) which argues for ID of which I am not a proponent. Nevertheless, their arguments work well and are based on good scientific research and logic. You could read Michael Denton’s book Nature’s Destiny, Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box or Philip Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial. Also, try the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis online. The best resource is, however, the Bible–especially Genesis & the latter chapters of Job.

    5. Let’s take your giraffe example to task. If the giraffe did not ‘consciously stretch its neck to reach the leaves on the trees’ then how, praytell, did the giraffe know there were leaves to stretch for in the first place? Even if the giraffe saw the leaves it would have had to make a conscious decision to reach for them, unless, of course, you are suggesting that DNA has a ‘mind of its own’ and that it saw the leaves and decided to grow a longer neck for the giraffe quite apart from the poor animal’s will. Maybe the DNA molecules were hungry for leaves. Is that what you are suggesting? Sure sounds like it to me. Learn it well because that sounds a lot hokier than simply saying, “God made giraffe’s the way they are.”

    If the giraffe spent all its time (when it had a ‘shorter neck’) looking down instead of up and there was food when it had a shorter neck, then what compelled it to ‘grow’ a longer neck? Please don’t suggest that it must have run out ground food because Acacia leaves don’t grow on the ground. If it ran out of food when it had a short neck it seems to me it would have died off before it had enough time to develop a long neck–long enough to reach the leaves at the top. Then, too, there’s that small issue of giraffes eating mostly acacia leaves–I wonder why they didn’t die off before they ‘adapted’ well enough to avoid dying from the poison.

    IN short, first, if it didn’t consciously happen, then how did the giraffe know it needed it (a longer neck)? Second, where did the information come from to make the neck grow longer? Third, why didn’t they die off before they adapted properly? Fourth, what exactly is natural selection supposed to prove again? Fifth, what does this have to do with giraffes?

    Sixth, this is why I believe that in the beginning God made the heavens, the earth, and all creatures–including the giraffe with an already extended neck.

    Seventh, can you reproduce several intermediate fossils showing a progression from a short neck giraffe to a long neck giraffe within a short enough period of time that the giraffe wouldn’t first die off before it ran out of the food it gained when it grew the longer neck (I doubt it)? What exactly is the common ancestry of the giraffe?

    Eighth, will you go away now? You are not going to win this argument with me because Darwinism is a lie for people who cannot and will not accept the fact that God is real. Furthermore, it is a theoretical joke, a philosophical waste of time, and an intellectual dead-end. It is meaningless.

    Ninth, if you wish to talk about Jesus Christ dying for your sins, and resurrecting to ensure the defeat of death, and His soon return to redeem us, I will be happy to enjoin you in conversation. We can talk about theology, Christology, or Spiritual formation. We can talk about grace, salvation, sin, redemption, or a particular book of the Bible. But I’m done talking about evolution. You are deluded and you have been lied to and you have believed the lie so deeply that you now think it is truth. It doesn’t even make you an intellectually satisfied atheist because it is so full of holes and lies. (Check resource list above.)

    This is the hard reality of your life. Learn it well.


  10. Evolution isn’t dogma. It’s a theory supported by physical evidence.

    Creationism/ID isn’t supported by evidence. It’s a comforting idea that is useless in Science. It can’t make predictions or offer any help or explanation other than the childlike answer, “IT JUST *IS*”. Believe in god if you must but Science does a great job of explaining the Causal Universe without him or her.

  11. Doris,

    Thank you for demonstrating once again how unthinking the Darwinist really is. You say that evolution offers explanation that is better than ‘it just is’?? What does Darwinism say? It says, in short: A giraffe one day, unconsciously, decided that it needed a long neck to get leaves at the top of a tree. Over many years a long neck magically appeared through the magical workings of something vaguely referred to as ‘natural selection’ of which the giraffe is completely unaware. And you think that Creation teaching is just ‘It just is’?? Are you joking? I’m sorry, but I don’t have enough faith to believe in your version of ‘it just is.’

    You have been brainwashed to sleep and it has granted you the inability to think your way out of a day dream.


  12. Jerry:

    First, [I don’t permit, per my right as the owner of this blog, links in replies except my own.–jerry]

    Here is a shocker for ya: I believe in God. I doubt the purpose of organized religion, but I believe in God and the philosophy of Jesus Christ. Yet I still believe in evolution. Something that is criminally misunderstood by…people of your kind is that we have some kind of dichotomy here, where you can only believe in creation or only believe in evolution, which is entirely false.

    [Most of your insults have been edited out. I left the above so I can conclude our conversation with one point.–jerry]

  13. Loser,

    You are a coward. You didn’t answer a single question I posed not because they are meaningless, but because you cannot. Where is your blog? Where are your ideas on the web? Where are you allowing others to challenge your ideas? You don’t even have a real name that you are willing to attach to your meaningless drivel. Right, that’s real stand up of you. Internet troll is what you are with not enough balls to post your own thoughts at your own blog.

    As a means of saying good-bye here’s a thought: The devil believes in God too. It doesn’t mean he is saved or that he is a Christian anymore than your ‘belief in God’ makes evolution true. (PS–here’s a shocker, God Created the world and the universe.)

    You are no different from any other evolutionary loser who has visited this blog. When you cannot converse intelligently, when you cannot argue persuasively, when you cannot answer hard questions like: Where does information come from in the first place, you resort to insults and childish mocking. Therefore, I have evolved and will no longer acknowledge you as a welcome visitor at my blog.


    PS–I will pray God forgive you for not believing in Him and His Son Jesus Christ who died for your sins. Perhaps he may turn and have mercy on you even though you are an ignorant ass.

  14. Jerry,

    A giraffe never decided—consciously or unconsciously—to grow a longer neck. That’s not how Natural Selection works.

    Also, there’s no magic involved. It’s due to random mutations which occur all the time. Look at drug-resistance developed in bacteria and viruses. There you have mutation and artificial selection ending up with an organism that is better suited in it’s enviroment. What would be your explanation for this process?

    Calling me ‘brainwashed’ is an easy way for you to dismiss what I have to say. Sounds to me like the argument is inside you between your Faith and your Reason. Many other religions and religious people have come to terms with the evidence and their beliefs. It sounds like you’re going to be fighting it out for a long time.

  15. Doris,

    My argument is with stupidity and unreasonable ideas for which there is no evidence. What does a bacteria prove? Nothing. If a bacteria develops a resistance to a man-made drug, and I have never argued that they do not, so what? That is not the same as a ‘random mutation’ occuring naturally in the wild so that a short necked giraffe, for example, becomes a long necked giraffe. Yours is a red-herring that has nothing to do with anything. Mutate the genes in a giraffe and you end up with something less than a giraffe, not a better version of the giraffe.

    No one has explained where such information came from either. What compelled the change in the giraffe? How did the giraffe know it would be better off with a longer neck as opposed to a shorter one? What is the particular advantage since there are plenty of other short necked animals that do just fine without long necks?

    My explanation is that the giraffe was created the way it is and it has always been the way it is. For the record, I’m not dismissing you because you are brainwashed by bad logic and unsubstantiated claims. I’m dismissing you because I have no particular reason to listen to you. Unless your aim is to convert me to Darwinism, your points are lost on me because they are simply not true.

    Your claim that ‘many other religions and religious people have come to terms with the evidence and their beliefs’ is a meaningless statement. If you say the Catholic Pope believes in evolution I would say, “So what? His religion is a false manifestation of biblical Christianity too.” And just because people have ‘come to terms’ (read: Compromised the Scripture) doesn’t mean that I should or will. Furthermore, it doesn’t make evolution any truer.

    And please, for the last time, what evidence are you talking about? If in fact a giraffe once had a short neck then we should expect a fossil record demonstrating such steps from short to long. I would like you to show me such fossil evidence. It should be in great abundance.

    At least you are somewhat polite, badly mistaken, but polite. That counts for something, I guess.


  16. Jerry,

    Of course you have no reason to listen…you’re resistant to influence. Some call it stubbornness but I think there’s something else going on.

    For some reason the Theory of Evolution threatens your Religious Beliefs. I wonder why. You’ve got it in your mindset that the Physical Universe cannot be understood without Divine Intervention. Is it because, in your mind, Evolution contradicts Genesis? Do you believe Genesis literally explains creation? How old do you believe the Earth is?

  17. Doris,

    Well, you caught me! And here all this time I thought I was hiding my Christianity so well. But you, ahh, you are a trained sleuth, skilled in the art of interpretation and reading between the lines.

    Can I tell you a secret? Of course there is something else going on: Evolution is only the fiction of one man’s imagination. (I’m still waiting on all that fossil evidence that a short necked giraffe ever existed.) The truth is this: Genesis and Darwin cannot both be right. So those Christians who compromise and say that both can be right have been deceived. (I have begun a series of essays here where I point out why the two cannot be compatible and why they are not compatible.)

    The theory of evolution poses no threat, as such, to my religious beliefs which are well grounded and secure in the knowledge that Genesis is, in fact, an accurate presentation of the origins of this world. In fact, the physical universe cannot be understood apart from God’s will, God’s Word, and God’s good pleasure. If Genesis isn’t true, then neither is Colossians, John’s Gospel, Revelation, Isaiah, Job, the Psalms, Mark’s Gospel, Romans–in fact, not much of the Bible is true if Genesis 1 is not since nearly every single book of the Bible (all Scripture) refers in some way to God being the Creator (even the Proverbs!)

    So, yes, I believe Genesis literally explains creation, but I also believe Colossians literally explains it and Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekiel and Peter and Paul and Jesus himself who took the book of Genesis literally–for example, when speaking of marriage.

    The age of the earth is a deceptive argument because you don’t understand how sin has cursed this world, this universe, and all that is in it. Nor, it appears do you understand that this world was made subject to decay since sin entered this world (see Romans 8.) Nor do you understand how empty and deceptive philosophies, taught by godless men and women, hold people captive to lies. Look, your greatest champion, Richard Dawkins, will affirm everything I am saying. The atheist needs Darwin because it gives him or her meaning and substance–only because they have rejected God in the first place. Darwinism fills a vaccum in the atheists’ life, but even that does not make Darwinism or evolution true.

    So, frankly, I don’t know how old the earth is, but it doesn’t change the fact that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and that on the sixth day he made man and woman in his image. So the question of how old the earth is is irrelevant to the discussion–except that the Darwinist needs many, many years in order for their inept theory to even have a chance. Some subscribe to a very young earth between 6,000-10,000 years. I don’t have enough expertise to make such a judgment; there are others who can. Still, it is beside the point that Genesis 1-2 accurately reflect what happened ‘in the Beginning.’

    This is the shorter version, but here it is. Thanks for helping me to probe deep into my psyche and uncover the real, hidden truth about myself. I do appreciate that you are concerned about whatever else might be going on in my life. Yes, what’s going on is that I believe Jesus Christ died and resurrected. That he ascended to the Father’s right hand and that He will return to judge the quick and the dead. My theology, my beliefs, my life depend on the truthfulness of Genesis 1. If it is ever proven false–which it won’t be–my faith, and that of many others, will be prove quite meaningless.

    As it is, the Scripture begins in a specific place for a specific reason (Genesis 1:1.) I accept that by faith. I trust that God will not lie. Can you have such confidence in your ‘evidence’, in your ‘scripture’ (Darwin), and in your prophets (Dawkins, Hitchens, et al)? My evidence is the empty tomb. It is irrefutable. But if I cannot trust the first words, I’ll never be able to accept the last words which promise that He will someday recreate a new heavens and a new earth. Nor, for that matter will I be able to trust anything in between. And this is just the theology.

    If you desire other evidence, go to and/or These are most helpful sites to visit.

    Have a good day.

  18. So, you will believe the Bible–literally–without any physical proof to support it yet you apply a critical standard to Evolution when it attempts to thread together an explanation of the physical world?

    Why is this?

    Why aren’t you as critical when it comes to questioning your Faith? Why haven’t you demanded proof of God as you demand proof of an intermediate form of the giraffe?

    Evolution explains a process in the physical world; God explains the spiritual world. But when one insists on using God to explain the physical world, he becomes Supernatural, by definition.

    This being true, you would accept a lower standard of evidence for Supernatural events than for Natural events. I think it should be just the opposite.

  19. Doris,

    Sorry for the delay. One question: Whatever gave you the idea that I believe in something that lacks evidence? You make the NOMA mistake because simply dividing the world into neat categories like physical and spiritual is not something required in order for me to believe in God and reject Darwinism. My standard of evidence is not lower at all. I have plenty of proof for creation. I have plenty of proof for God’s existence. It’s called the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.


  20. Hi, Jerry! Glad to see you’re fighting the good fight! And, as Doris said, “It sounds like you’re going to be fighting it out for a long time.”

    Not necessarily, Doris.

    If Doris and RU will open their minds to serious biblical study, they may be surprised at the “predictions” made (not sure how Doris meant “predictions”—prophecies?) and I have no doubt that this sort of skepticism and doubt is quite the insult to God. Every argument man comes up with against God is “predicted”, for one, in 2Peter 3:3–…”in the last days, scoffers, walking after their own lusts.” In studying, one can see the things that the prophets said, even though they had no clue about modern technology, are exact.

    I dislike quoting ‘a’ verse b/c you need to read much before you begin to have an understanding, but sometimes it may help someone become curious enough to open a Bible… I will, however, go to the trouble of sharing Romans 1:20-23—– “20- For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead: so that they are without excuse: 21- Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful: but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22- Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23- And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and to fourfooted beasts and creeping things.”

    Note: No Excuse!

    I am also a “proponent” of Matthew 10: 14 and would have shaken the dust from my feet several comments ago… that is not to say I don’t pray for unbelievers’ redemption!

    I can only be sorry and grieve for Doris and RUs’ loss to this point. May God touch hearts.

    Good work here, Jerry, and God Bless You for more patience than I would have attempted. Something I only discovered recently, and probably due to Christians being vilifed for an attitude of superiority, is that the content of Hebrews is actually a demonstration of why Christ, therefore, Christianity (in the true sense), is superior. Without Christ, all is for naught! Not to condone haughtiness, but to say we are supposed to take a stand for the faith.

    God’s Blessings and Guidance to You and Yours, Jerry!

  21. Odale,

    Thanks for stopping by. I haven’t been arguing with the Darwin crowd much lately. They seem to have given up any hope that I might cave in and all of the sudden become a believer. The conversation got tired anyhow because the materialists never have anything new to say. They simply continue to spout of nonsense they read in a book by RD or CD or some other lunatic on the fringe of reality. I tried to be nice, but alas, when it comes to Darwin there is no room for challenge; the Darwinists won’t allow it. Contrary to the person who wrote way up above, I think the classroom is the perfect place for debating such issues, unless of course we are sponsoring (and paying for) indoctrination instead of education.

    I’ll do my best to defend the truth and point believers to a hopeful life. I think this is a serious matter because Creation and Redemption and Providence are so intricately tied together. Thanks for the encouragement.


  22. “Where does information come from in the first place…”

    A sure tip-off that a crazy creationist is trying to snow you with bafflegab.

    Next he will try to tell you that evolution cannot create “information”.


  23. “The best resource is, however, the Bible–especially Genesis & the latter chapters of Job. ”

    Can you understand how a scientist would be unimpressed by this authority?

    “Creation and Redemption and Providence are so intricately tied together.”

    Yes, they are all religious ideas that have nothing to do with science.

  24. One,

    Creationist asks: “Where does the information come from in the FIRST place?”

    Darwinist answers: “A sure tip-off that a crazy creationist is trying to snow you with bafflegab.”

    Logical deduction: The Darwinist doesn’t have the slightest idea.


  25. Silly,

    Wrong. Creation, Redemption and Providence have everything to do with science. If there is no such thing as the Creator who created as described in Genesis then there is simply no human life available to do the science you speak of. Science is only possible because God made it possible. They are no mere ideas, but seeing as how you managed to wrangle them from their context I can understand how these difficult truths might be a little too deep for you to grasp.


  26. “Logical deduction: The Darwinist doesn’t have the slightest idea.”


    Of course genetic “information” comes from sex and mutations and a bunch of other ways. You really ought to try to learn something sometime. Or have you been convinced to stay away from “talk origins” because it’s all lies.

    “If there is no such thing as the Creator who created as described in Genesis then there is simply no human life available to do the science you speak of.”

    Wow. A new proof of a god. I think therefore he/she/it/they exist(s). How original. And unconvincing. I never read anything this dumb in any philosophy book.

    I guess the experimental observation that chimpanzees are just as good at a certain summation guessing task as a human is “proof” that human brains are oh so special. Not.

  27. One,

    You are typical of most Darwinists: When you don’t have an answer you shrug off the questions with fake uncomfortable snickering.

    You misread my statement about information. I’m not denying genes can be mutated–although I would argue it is always to the creatures detriment and never to its advantage. However, what I said was: Where did the information come from in the FIRST PLACE?

    And you are right. The experimental observation that chimps are ‘just as good at a certain summation “GUESSING” task as humans’ proves nothing.

    I have no idea what you mean by ‘talk origins.’ I have been talking about origins all along and I’m telling you that our only origin is the Creative will of God. Apart from His act, there is no information that can even be mutated.

    I would suggest that if you want to continue a healthy, adult conversation, you go back to kindergarten and learn again how to play nice. As it is, you are embarassing yourself with your childish, Dawkins like arguments. You are only showing yourself to be ignorant of your own theories (that is, you appear to know nothing of what Darwinism really teaches and what modern Darwinists really say) and your mocking tone is really bothersome.

    Furthermore, you still have not answered the basic question I have posited: Where did the information come from in the FIRST PLACE? (Is it because you cannot? Hmmmmm….)

    You are probably still rolling on the floor like a two year old. Grow up or at least learn how to insult me a little better.


  28. “When you don’t have an answer you shrug off the questions with fake uncomfortable snickering.”

    I assume you are way way beyond attempting to learn anything. If you are familiar with something called “Google” and you perform a “search” using the phrase “talk origins”, all your questions could be answered. If you come up with a question that is A) intelligent and B) not there, I will be really and truly surprised. There has not really been a new question posed in 10 years or more.

    “Where did the information come from in the FIRST PLACE?”

    Well, you could start with “where did the Universe come from in the first place?” This has nothing to do with “evolution” of course. Then you could continue with “what is the chance that “life” spontaneously arose from “non-life” on the primordial Earth?” This, too, has nothing to do with “evolution”. It is called “abiogenesis”. Then you could claim that such an event would be “unlikely”. But it would be really hard to prove that it was impossible. Then you could try “what is the chance that this thing called “life” could evolve something called “intelligence” in a few billion years? Again, it would be very hard to prove that it was impossible. So you would be left with “That is the accepted scientific explanation, but I don’t accept it”. This would be called “denial of science”.

    “The experimental observation that chimps are ‘just as good at a certain summation “GUESSING” task as humans’ proves nothing.”

    Actually, it proves that in this area, chimpanzees are just as intelligent as humans. And it is a non-trivial guessing task at which humans are fairly successful.

    “Apart from His act, there is no information that can even be mutated.”

    This does not seem to be a scientific statement to me. So my assumption that you are beyond reason seems justified.

    “learn again how to play nice”

    This is the real world and I am here and you are there and unlikely to punch me in the nose.

    “your mocking tone is really bothersome”

    Let him who cannot be mocked go to hell.

    “learn how to insult me a little better”

    I’m going to get warmed up one of these days. Then I’ll try “You are obviously a crebot.” (Look it up.)

  29. One,

    Well, I have to say that you have outdone yourself and you have done well in your insults young grasshopper. But you still have not answered any of my questions. YOU still cannot tell me where information came from any more than Darwinism came from. There was another fella who used to visit here and he would say things like, “Read peer-reviewed papers and Darwinism will a) be proven and b) make sense and c) you will get the ‘education’ you need so that you will deny God, embrace Charles Darwin, and reject Christianity.” Now you are saying, ‘do a google’ search and a), b), and c).” I have read man ‘peer reviewed’ papers. I even had a subscription ot Natural History magazine for a while. So what? Papers written by your theologians do not prove anything more than papers written by ‘mine.’ You accept by faith that the Darwinist anti-theologians are interpreting bone fragments correctly based upon the assumed, circular reasoning of Carbon dating and the particular strata of rock where the bone was found. I accept by faith the God was telling the truth when he said the world has been subjected to decay and that the world has been decaying since the Fall of man and woman as recorded in Genesis 3.

    Your belief system, your Darwinist point of view, requires as much, if not substantially more, faith than mine. I believe that the world is subject to decay, death, and sin. My evidence is all around.

    Peer reviewed papers and google searches of internet blogs and websites prove nothing. Abiogenesis proves nothing; it is an idea. These are merely ‘scientific’ guesses at how people think life happened apart from God. I don’t accept their testimony because it is built upon a faulty premise: name, that God doesn’t exist. I accept that God does exist and the evidence is the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ–facts attested to by many, many witnesses throughout history.

    You assume too much. I am willing to learn anything anyone has to teach me as long as it is a) reasonable, b) logical, and c) somewhat demonstrable, and d) intellectually tenable, and d) doesn’t eminate from an atheistic point of view. Darwinism does none of these things. I’m not opposed to wisdom or learning. I have learned a great deal about Darwinism. It is precisely because I understand it that I reject it. Darwinism, in the words of your prophet, “Gives the atheist the opportunity for intellectual fulfillment.” That’s all it does. It fills a void in your atheistic worldview, but it is fluff. It is still unsatisfying because it rejects Jesus Christ.

    I agree: Where did the universe come from if it was not created ex nihilo by a Superior Intelligence named God? You assume material always has been. I don’t. The very fact of death demonstrates that matter has not and cannot exist in perpetuity.

    PS–I don’t deny science. I deny evolution, specifically Darwinian materialistic evolution as a valid explanation for the phenomenon called Life. I have explained this 1,000 times at this blog. Science is a beautiful thing. Darwinism is meaningless drivel.

    Yes, Chimps are as intelligent as humans that is why they have built cities, written symphonies, drive cars, built computers, play chess, read, write, do math, explore space. It also explains why they created nuclear bombs and conduct wars with others. It explains why they abort their own children. It explains why they rape, kill, molest, and steal. It explains why chimps have written books advancing the death of God and their belief in Darwinism. It explains why they do scientific research concerning the habits of men and women. It probably also explains why they run around naked, fling fecies, live in zoos (some of them), oh, and whatever. Give me something more than guessing chimps. Guessing chimps proves nothing except that they can learn. Even dogs can learn. Cats can learn. It does not put them at the same level of intellectual accountability as humans. I might actually suggest, based on this limited evidence, that chimps are actually smarter than humans.

    I am, to be sure, quite beyond reason since God has made the wisdom of this age meaningless through the Cross of Christ. Your ‘wisdom’ is meaningless apart from surrender to Christ. I’m not the lost one here friend.

    “This does not seem to be a scientific statement to me.” Did I suggest it was? It is a theological statement. You do know the difference, right?

    This is not the real world. It is a blog. I have no interest in punching you in the nose. Dismantling your logic is much more fun and entertaining.

    I have no problem being mocked. “Bless those who curse you.” Mock away. I’m not above Christ.

    Bless you!


    PS–there is no listen in the dictionary for ‘crebot’ so I can only guess that it is some combination of creationist and robot. Cool! Good word use. Very creative. A while back I invented this one for Darwinists: Darloserists. What do you think?

  30. One,

    You do realize in your last reply you made a statement of incredible faith in God right? When you said, “let him who cannot be mocked go to hell” you in some way acknowledged that God is Real and that the Scripture testifies to His purposes. Hell is a metaphysical reality. I’m surprised you slipped up the way you did. Good job!



  31. “PS–I don’t deny science. I deny evolution, specifically Darwinian materialistic evolution as a valid explanation for the phenomenon called Life. I have explained this 1,000 times at this blog. Science is a beautiful thing. Darwinism is meaningless drivel.”

    The Modern Theory of Evolution is accepted science. You cannot accept science and deny evolution. On the other hand, evolution explains the diversity of life, not “life”. So you continue to misunderstand that which you are criticizing.

    “When you said, “let him who cannot be mocked go to hell” you in some way acknowledged that God is Real and that the Scripture testifies to His purposes. Hell is a metaphysical reality. I’m surprised you slipped up the way you did. Good job!”

    Of course I was just mocking your silly beliefs.

    “I am, to be sure, quite beyond reason …”

    Well, we do have a one little point of agreement.

  32. One,

    I’ll end this conversation (from my side) with the same question I asked when you began it: Where did the information come from in the FIRST place?

    Darwinism, is not science. It is philosophy and not very good philosophy either. If it is ‘science’ it is junk science.

    As to my ‘silly beliefs,’ well, with all due respect, we’ll just have to wait and see now won’t we ?

    Eat! Drink! And Be Merry! You may as well enjoy as much of this life as you can because without Jesus Christ you are sadly lost, and your theory of evolution has yet to discover a way to mutate our genes in such a way as to prevent death. I hope you will let Him into your life someday.


  33. Obviously the “genetic code” contains “information”. So you could ask “where did the genetic code come from in the first place?” Obviously the genetic code could be considered necessary for “life”. So you could ask “where did life come from in the first place?”

    As I stated above, this is the question of “abiogenesis”, not “evolution”. There are several speculations about abiogenesis. One is described in the Discover Magazine that arrived in the mail yesterday. All are speculative science. “God did it” is not science.

    “Darwinism is not science.”

    Yes, the worship of Darwin as a God would not be science. However, evolution is very well substantiated science.

    “we’ll just have to wait and see”

    It would seem that you are pinning your hopes of discovering the truth on a time after your death. I consider that very silly of course.

    “without Jesus Christ you are sadly lost”

    Typical nonsense from a true believer.

  34. One,

    I’m not pinning my hopes on a time after death. Hope is meaningless after we die. I’m pinning my hopes on the historical Death and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God. Apart from this, there is no hope either now or later.

    I’m glad you at least recognize that I am a true believer whether it is typical nonsense or not. Yes. I love the Lord Jesus for dealing with my sin and making me no longer an object of God’s wrath. Praise God I am saved by the Blood of the Lamb!


  35. “Praise God I am saved by the Blood of the Lamb!”

    I’m so glad to hear it he said mockingly.

    And I’m glad your are not trying to repeat for the third time something silly about “where did information come from?”

    Of course we have gotten away from your original complaint:

    “but they want no one to challenge the premises of that dogma. Those who do challenge are often labeled in various ways from ‘believers in fairy-tales’ to ’stupid Creationists’ to ‘uneducated Christians.’”

    The point is: evolution is a scientific theory and there is no reason it cannot be challenged on scientific grounds. But if you challenge it based on religious grounds, it would seem quite reasonable to label you appropriately. Since the labels obviously fit, you should wear them proudly in your ignorance.

  36. One,

    Oh, this is where you are really wrong: you assume that ‘science’ is more important than ‘religion.’ The people that Stein will meet with in the film are people who have challenged Darwinism on scientific grounds and were essentially told that they could not do so.

    I don’t assume Darwinism is wrong simply because I am a Christian. I know it is wrong because it is so impossibly illogical that it is hard to fathom any thinking person accepting it as even a theory. Darwinism is a way of life–not a science. It theorizes about ideas that are simply unimaginable apart from a Guiding Intelligence (not that I accept theistic evolution either.) It makes claims that evidence cannot substantiate. And it holds captive those with no real awe or wonder for the things God has made by his own power, wisdom, will and Word. So my challenge to Darwinism is not based on religion as such, but on the simple fact that a) it cannot be substantiated evidentially b) it is logically impossible and c) I have read the work of many reputable scientists who firmly disagree with it Darwinism and evolution.

    As I said, it is precisely because I do understand it that I reject it.

    The Creation was Created by God to demonstrate His Power and Wisdom and to display His Glory. Man has usurped that prerogative in sin. This is not a scientific discussion: it is a theological discussion. And I’m sorry you don’t seem to understand this, but science is meaningless apart from belief in and submission to the One who made science possible: Jesus Christ. So my praise is no mocking gesture. It is thanks to God for a reality that you have yet to understand because you are blinded by your own contempt for God’s sacrifice for your sins.

    To the Point: Where did the information come from? You still have not answered this most fundamental question. It had to come from some place. It has to have an origin. I know that you don’t have an answer because you cannot and will not believe in God.


  37. “The people that Stein will meet with in the film are people who have challenged Darwinism on scientific grounds and were essentially told that they could not do so.”

    I believe this statement is incorrect in both ways. 1) The challenges are not on scientific goounds. 2) We have “freedom of speech” and no one has been censored. So basically the film is a lie.

    “I know it is wrong because it is so impossibly illogical..” blah blah blah.

    Same old “argument from incredulity” – I can’t believe it actually happened that way, so it didn’t. Not very scientific. LOL

    “I have read the work of many reputable scientists who firmly disagree with it Darwinism and evolution.”

    Ahhh – an argument from the wrong authorities – how convenient. LOL

    “This is not a scientific discussion: it is a theological discussion.”

    Well, pardon me. I will now take my scientific evolution and go home.

    “science is meaningless apart from belief in and submission to the One who made science possible”

    I believe that my authorities would not agreed with this assertion.

    “To the Point: Where did the information come from?”

    Asked and answered twice. How come you didn’t repeat this in your next to last post?

    “I know that you don’t have an answer because you cannot and will not believe in God. ”

    An uninteresting fallacy – If you don’t believe in god, then you can’t answer this question.. It would seem that you departed from science a long, long time ago.

    Well, you are entitled to your scientific ignorance and your religious nonsense – you can’t be censored on your own blog. LOL

  38. It is frightening to intelligent people to see this swell of middle ages style ignorance starting to take hold. Do you drive a car? Ride in airplanes? Use electricity? All of these things, like evolution, came to our understanding through actual science. The various illiterate claims that “God created everything” are not equal to research and study. I know that my words will have no impact on the religious zealots who want to kill all the non-believers and then end the world for Jesus, but I hope if there are people out there who might think this trash is worth teaching, they will think twice about what the mind of man has created. God was created by ancient sheep herders who feared everything because they knew nothing. Apparently, Ben Stein prefers their fear to the light of knowledge. It is pitiful.

  39. I’m sorry, Jerry, but as a rational human being who understands science I cannot back you up on this.

    You can try your best to argue against evolution and its ideas, but your lack of understanding about science and how it works makes your argument flawed from the start. Basically, if you adore science as much as you claim to, you should have no trouble excepting the THEORY of Evolution, as it is a perfect example of beautiful science at work.

    Notice that I capitalize “theory,” though. Attaining the status of “theory” in science is the accomplishment all scientists dream of. To be called a “theory” is to endure decades of tests and questions. Scientists literally ATTEMPT to prove each other wrong, as it is the scientific community that deals with all things science. For a hypothesis to stand up to all the tests of science is remarkable, and as such, being promoted to a theory is no small feat. Notice the incredibly small number of theories science uses as proof of this, and also keep in mind that scientists have absolute confidence in the theories they use, one of which is Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

    Though you make claims of logic, your validity of God’s creation is flawed. What you are arguing, basically, is that because scientists cannot tell you 100% how the universe was created (though they are getting there), that automatically proves the existence of God. Science does not work in this fashion of, “Not A, so therefore it MUST be B!” Just one of the many examples of why creationism/intelligent design is bad science.

    Anyway, when it all comes down to it, we still have inconsistencies in our “creation” that spontaneous creation does not explain. For example: why do humans have tail bones? why do we have meaningless hair on our bodies? why do we have the sensation of goosebumps? why do we grow wisdom teeth? why do we have an appendix? These useless parts, or, vestigial structures, are given a beautiful reason by Evolution: our ancestors, at some point, used them.

    To argue that from a creation standpoint basically admits that we have a lazy, inept creator on our hands.

  40. Spag,

    Well: “The FSM said, Darwinists believe it, that settles it!”

    I’m not going to bother wasting my time answering all of your charges since I don’t think you are THE (notice how I captilize THE) FSM. IF you were it is highly unlikely, what with your reponsibilities for governing the universe, that you would have time to visit my lowly blog.

    Anyhow, please don’t go away thinking that somehow my lack of desire to respond to you point by point is in any way an admission that you are even remotely close to believable or credible.

    Just for the record, no one ever said that the Bible is making scientific claims. However, that does not negate the Bible’s claim to authority. Theories do not invalidate the Word of God.

    For vestigial organs see the following:



    And just because an organ is seemingly ‘useless’ now doesn’t mean that we have evolved from a lower species. Vestigial organs prove only that we had an organ once that worked and we have it now and it doesn’t. (Although, who’s to say that these organs aren’t useful?) Or maybe God put them there just to please Himself and irritate you. Maybe Jesus has a sense of humor. BTW, what tailbone are you talking about?

    Thanks for stopping or flying by, but I still believe Genesis, Romans, Colossians, Job, Isaiah, Revelation, the Psalms, and so on and so forth. Darwinism simply has no legs to stand on; it is a joke at best.


  41. “Darwinism simply has no legs to stand on; it is a joke at best.”

    Well, the joke’s on you. Scientists who do research using a fundamental understanding of the Theory of Evolution are using your tax dollars to try to improve the human condition. So, unless you are going to directly benefit from this research in some way by using some new drug they help develop, they are spending your tax dollars in a way in which you would not approve. And those silly NAS and IOM and UCS people are spending dollars trying to influence the education of high school students. So you have your 27 million dollar Creation “Museum”, but we have many more millions of dollars in research funds.

  42. One,

    With each post you make, your case gets weaker. I have no idea what you are talking about this time. Is your case about money? Have it, I don’t care. I’m not living for money. I am on the side of truth–which is not what Darwinism is. You and Tommy Ray ought to get together; I’ll bet the conversation would be stimulating.


  43. “This is exactly the problem I have been documenting. Darwinists want the right to teach their dogma, and only a few really deny they have a right to (I’m not one of them), but they want no one to challenge the premises of that dogma.”

    No the problem is that people like you don’t understand how science works to begin with? Dogma? I don’t thinks. How about intelligent design. Is there evidence to support it? No? Does it make testable predictions about the natural world? NO?! Well why would we “teach it in the schools” except as a form of wrong headed “fairness” and an attempt to placate the easily offended?

  44. Chris,

    Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your point of view, but I think it is seriously misguided. You are naive if you think that the scientific establishment does not want their pet theories challenged, and you are worse if think that those theories are not dogmas. I cannot say it nicely, you just don’t know the truth of the matter when it comes to theories. Darwinism as a theory has been bunked, debunked and re-debunked so many times it is simply beyond belief that anyone still clings to this hopeless theory.

    For the record, I don’t think I have advocated teaching ID per se since I am not a proponent of ID as such. I am, however, an advocate of the theory of evolution being challenged at every possible point of contention–just as you would no doubt agree that ID should be challenged at every possible point of contention. This is not about ‘fairness’ or ‘placating the easily offended.’ I’m not offended by evolution as a theory, but I am offended that evolution as scientific dogma is not to be challenged at any point in the established educational system and that those who do challenge it are summarily discredited.

    If you don’t think it is about control you are beyond hope. Evolution is one (of a relative few) area where the scientific community controls a monopoly of thought. IF that is upset by people challenging its intellectual, historical, and evidential merit what will that do to the establishment at large? What power will they have to continue indoctrinating young children into a theory that is simply absurd and without even intellectual merit?

    For the record, I am not a proponent of ID. I believe in Creation by God in 6 Days roughly 10-15,000 years ago. In other words, I am a Christian who believes in the inspired Holy Scripture. I’m not here (in this post) defending ID or Creation, nor am I saying either should be taught in the public school. I have no problem with evolution being taught in public schools. I have a problem with those who think it cannot be challenged at its weakest points (which is the entire theory, but that’s another post).

    I hope this clarifies my position which you didn’t seem to understand. Of course, it’s hard to know this when you have (presumably) only read one post. I have outlined in several posts my point of view on this matter. Thanks again for stopping by.


  45. “With each post you make, your case gets weaker”

    You would not recognise a scientific “case” if it bit you.

    “I believe in Creation by God in 6 Days roughly 10-15,000 years ago.”

    Of course this is profoundly anti-science. So now I see what happens when you mix anti-science and stupidity. Teh stuupid – it burns.

  46. Six,

    If you can become just a little more concrete in what you are saying then perhaps I’ll give a little more weight to your drivel. Creation is not anti-science, it is anti-Darwinism, and, since Darwin himself hated God, I suppose God is, too, anti-Darwin. In the meantime, keep clinging to a hopeless life and an empty theory. Theory.


  47. Six,

    Like I said elsewhere, I will not post your replies any longer until you identify yourself. Once your real name is posted in your replies, I will be happy to post your alternative point of view.


  48. “where information came from”

    In some sense, information came from “chaos”. There was a Big Bang about 14 billion years ago. But it was not “perfect”. There were “clumps” of matter here and there and voids in between. Because of gravity, some clumps formed galaxies and within those galaxies, some clumps formed stars and some stars formed planets around them. And at least one planet that was “perfect” for life formed. We call it Earth. It had all of the necessary ingredients – carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nearly all of the other elements.

    Now it gets “tricky”. There are several theories about how organic molecules became concentrated and “self-organized”. Then the first “replicating” molecules were accidentally formed. Then those molecules replicated imperfectly and created different replicating molecules. So, as different replicating molecules were created, more and more “information” was created. At some point, the replicating molecules reached a point where they could be called “pre-life”. Then another few hundreds of millions of years later, the pre-life became life. Then life evolved more and more complex life-forms.

    “I’m not denying genes can be mutated–although I would argue it is always to the creatures detriment and never to its advantage.”

    This is a fundamental misunderstanding of mutations. Some can be advantageous. Some can be disadvantageous. Most are “neutral”. Some can result in the “loss of information”. Some can result in the “gain of information”. The definition of “information” is also very “tricky” in the area of genetics. One definition of “increase in information” would be that the organism that contains the mutation is now capable of doing “something” (chemically inside the cells) that its ancestor could not do.

    So there is no doubt that mutations can be advantageous and that they can lead to “new information”.

    So chaotic matter after the Big Bang formed stars and planets and the energy from the Sun allowed life to be created and evolve on this planet. And fortunately for us, an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs (except for the birds) about 65 million years ago and allowed shrew-like mammals to evolve into humans.

    My name is Mike McCants.

  49. One,

    I’m glad you are Mike McCants. Should I know you?

    I don’t buy a single word of what you are saying. The Bible says we were made from the dust of the ground by the ‘hands’ of God. It does not say we evolved from water or replicating and mutating molecules.

    I grant that ‘always’ was too loaded. Clearly, biological history demonstrates some mutations can be beneficial. This does not in any way validate the assumption that enough of these beneficial mutations can be piled upon one another to make a creature, any creature, or a new creature out of an old creature. This is absurdity.

    I have no problem with ‘big bang’ as such, but ‘big bang’ posits no catalyst. My theory is that: “God Spoke”. Big Bang actually explains the “God Spoke” doctrine well. However, we disagree on the number of years. I don’t buy your 14 billion at all.

    Thanks for stopping back.

  50. If you look at this page:

    there are 11 topics. Five are about evolution, intelligent design, …, Hitler and Eugenics. So Expelled is about these topics. Six are about specific people who claim that they have been treated unfairly. So Expelled is about them. So it really is a 90 minute movie that covers these topics.

    Then you should consider the law that is being promoted by the creationists:

    So the point is: there will be an attempt to control evolution science teaching by creationists in the state legislatures. As if the “weaknesses in Darwinian theory” could actually be properly discussed in a high school classroom.

    It is all about the political battle for “hearts” (ignoring minds).

  51. Mike,

    It is not about ignoring minds. It is about academic freedom. It is about freedom of speech. It is about not having a monopoly on thought. It is about all things being open to challenge. It is about debating ideas. The weaknesses should be discussed. What you are suggesting is indoctrination not education. Every idea should be discussed. Every thought challenged. Every philosophy debated. That is the nature of education–especially in America. It is about the free exchange of ideas–where the survival of the fittest will win out over the weak.

    I’m not personally aware of any laws being promoted and I believe in the Biblical Creation. But I have told you before that is not my point. I have told you that I could not care less if Creation is taught in schools and I could not care less if Darwin is not taught in schools. That is not my point. My point is this: Let us examine both sides of the Darwin issue and allow people to make up their own minds.

    The only people who have a problem with this are the Darwinists who feel they need to prevent any challenges whatsoever to their pet theory. YOU, my friend, are the one who is afraid of the free exchange and challenge of ideas. Not me.

    It is not about hearts to the exclusion of minds. It is about academic freedom to believe what you want in America. We have a fundamental freedom of thought that Darwinists wish to supress. I tell you this: it is about power and money. If the Darwinist is challenged, if his theory is proven bunk, how will he get his money for his ‘research’? That’s where the battle is friend: The wallet.


  52. “That is the nature of education”

    Be more specific. High school education? I disagree. There are enough problems trying to get high school students to learn algebra and F=ma and HCl + NaOH -> NaCl + H2O and that offspring can inherit characteristics from either parent. But high school biology is what the new state laws want to influence. Undergraduate pre-med university education? Well, there’s still an awful lot to learn about how biology really works. Evolution is important, but learning known facts is more important. Graduate education and research? Now we are getting serious. Now it’s time to try to prove that “intelligent design” has something to bring to the scientific table. So far, it’s flunked.

    “YOU are the one who is afraid of the free exchange and challenge of ideas.”

    The creationists have failed to present any reasonable scientific challenge to the theory of evolution in the last 50 years. Why should I be afraid of such a challenge?

    “We have a fundamental freedom of thought that Darwinists wish to suppress.”

    Nonsense. They have published books, articles, and blogs for decades. Their ideas cannot be suppressed. But they can be rejected as non-scientific nonsense. But when religious creationists control state legislatures and state boards of education, high school biology education will get worse than it already is.

    “how will he get his money for his ‘research’?”

    Do you want research grants for future advances in medicine to be based on religious merit or scientific merit?

    The point – creationism/intelligent design is not and can never be science. This question was settled a long time ago. But creationists want to win hearts so they can have a do-over in the state legislatures and school boards.

  53. Mike,

    OK. We live here in America where you are free to believe what you like. I’m not going to get in your way. Nor am I going to be drawn into this argument any further.

    Take care.


    PS–This is not about medical research. The only reason you throw that into the discussion is because you want it to appear that Christians are opposed to any and all scientific research, advancement and development. We do not and we are not. What we are opposed to is any one line of thought dominating the discussion to the exclusion of all others. What you want is for Darwinism to remain the dominant (read: only) paradigm for understanding the inception, formation, and continuation of diversity and life on this planet. You want no challenges from anyone: Not from religion, not from other branches of science, not from the local sportscaster, not even from God himself. That is not education: That is indoctrination. This is the educational equivalent of a dictatorship telling you what to think, how to think it, when to think it and why. I don’t happen to care where the challenges come from, but challenges should be mounted at every turn until there is absolute, conclusive, final proof of a particular theory. Education is about the free flow of ideas; it’s about debate; it’s about challenges; it’s about questions. You Darwinists always accuse Christians of being brainwashed and closed minded. But who really is? If your theory is as sound as you claim, then your prophets and priests should have no problem whatsoever producing evidence that debunks any challenges posed by opponents; and in fact, your lords should welcome all challenges so as to shame those who are opposed. Therein is the problem, right? That’s why challenges must be silenced–regardless of where the challenge happens to come from be it religion, other scientists, the founder of the weather channel, or a book. Mike, once again, this is not even about whether or not Darwinism is taught in schools. I have no problem with it being taught, however, there are challenges to Darwinism from the disciplines of philosophy, logic, mathematics, psychology, biology, and elsewhere. Religion, especially Christianity, does not even need to be brought up for the challenges to be mounted against Darwin’s theory. OK. Now I am done.

  54. Jerry,

    The basic idea is that mutations that do cause beneficial effects do accumilate, because they are handed down in through the generations more frequently and tend to dominate in the gene pool. You claim it is absurd, but it can be demonstrated to happen in bacteria and flies (bacteria and flies have very short generations, and thus we can observe it, most other creatures live so long observing it in a lab is pretty hard. Mice too, we’ve observed that)

    Anyways, we can watch mutations happen under a microscope in DNA. You can see a ribosomal process copying DNA and miscopying. We can bombard the DNA with radioactive particles, and increase the chances of an error. There are many types of errors. A “bit” could be flipped… a G nucleotide could have been accidently copied as a A. Or a sequence of GACCACATTTCA could have been duplicated twice repeatidly. Or crossover, where material from one chromosome is accidently copied into another. This happens all the time. It’s actually a very mechanical process. I want to strike home that we can WATCH THIS UNDER A MICROSCOPE. It’s not a ‘theory’ in that we think it happens, we can see it. Now, when Darwin was formulating his theory, he could not see it. Only a few decades later was DNA actually discovered. DNA just exposed the mechanism of Darwin’s idea.

    Anyways. It doesn’t look like this matter. You don’t believe that the earth is even that old, which sort of negates the point. We’d have to first argue about that, and I don’t really want to.

    Why do you claim that evolution is not open to challenge? It is. Come up with another idea to explain something, and publish it. People wil read it. If your idea isn’t very good, or contradicts a few hundred dozen other things, then it will probably be rejected. If you do this repeatidly, eventually people will stop listening to you. That’s how society works. It’s how science works. You can publish what you want, but the burden is on your to convince people. ID was such an idea. It had some very obvious logical errors, elementary really, and so the community on a whole rejected it. That’s how it works. Of course, the idea can’t rest on the supernatural. Because that is not science. Look up teh definition of science, it’s a process to find natural explanations for natural occurances. It deliberatly excludes the super natural. Because it’s not helpful. As soon as you invoke the supernatural, anything can happen, and thus any test can be negated by the wave of a noodly appendage. This is the domain of religion. The thing about science is it allows us to make predictions. We can look at what’s around us today, and deduce what will happen tomorrow. We can use our knowledge of evolution to come up with ideas for new drugs. We do this. Today. The modern medicine industry is pretty much based on our knowledge of genetics, mutation, and change over time.

    As an example, we’ve isolated a specific protein produced by a specific genetic sequence in chimpanzees that protects their cells from HIV. We’ve examined this same sequence in humans, and determined that a mutation some millions of years ago caused us to lose that protein. The mutation that lost us vulnerbility to the HIV virus however protected us from another virus. That protection caused descendents of the original early human who had the mutation to become numerous (everybody else died!) However, when HIV appeared (it appeared itself from a mutation in SIV, we believe (Simian Immuno Deficiency Virus)), obviously we were vulnerble. Alas! In some million years, there will probably be a mutation that gives us immunity from HIV. Though, I suspect, we’ll cure it using medicine long before that.

    Anyways. This has allowed us to create new drugs, by synthesisying the protein we know chimps have, and we lack. Progress for humanity all around. Repeat this episode for modern cancern study, etc.

    So, you asked where new information came from. That’s it, it’s simple. An error during copying adds new information. It’s random. As random as you flipping a coin and it landing either heads or tails. Now, you can certainly claim a religious position that God decides which way a coin will end up. That’s fine…. but it doesn’t really help the argument any. Putting that in a publish science document won’t help anybody. It won’t convince anybody.

    There is freedom to believe what you want in America. Pure, absolute freedom. But there’s also freedom to disregard people whom you believe are offering useless explanations. That’s what scientists are equally free to do.

    Another thing, is Evolution isn’t really just a single theory, anymore. It is a theory, but it’s a theory which has lead to thousands of new discoveries. It’s a theory that is perfectly compatible with all evidence every discovered. It’s composed of hundreds of sub-divisions of study. You have zoologists, biologics, geneticists, moleculer genetics. Onward. So, if you want to propose that evolution is “wrong”, sure. BUt in doing so you have to a) offer a reason that evolution does not explain some of this evidence and b) offer an explanation that does explain them. To date, nobody has done that. I’m sure if you did, you’d be the talk of the community.

  55. Jerome,

    The only evidence that Darwinism isn’t compatible with is the Scripture which states: “In the beginning God Created (out of nothing) the heavens and the earth.” For me, that is the litmus test. Darwinism doesn’t pass muster with Scripture. But thanks for all the insightful information that essentially means nothing.


  56. Jerry,

    How does that relate to science, then? The blog post started with you claiming that alternative views should be presented, and were not being presented.

    Is Scripture the alternative view you propose to present as science?

    Obvioulsy no scientist can argue with the Bible. It’s about as useful as arguing with the Koran. Or any one of thousands of supernatural beliefs: it’s outside of the scope of science.

    I recognize your right to believe in it. And I won’t even argue with it. What I don’t agree with is your characterization that science won’t entertain alternative scientific theories. That’s the only reason I’m posting.

  57. Jerome,

    And what I don’t recognize is atheistic Darwinism. I’m not arguing, and I never have argued at this blog, in any post I have made about evolution, that Creation from a Biblical point of view ought to be taught in schools. That is not my position. But I do disagree with you, profoundly, that alternatives are taught. There are no disclaimers presented to my sons when the science teacher says stupid things like: “Whales breathe air because they used to walk on land.”

    Logically and philosophically, Darwinism is simply incomprehensible. It simply makes no sense in the macro-evolution sense. And plenty of scientists have debunked a lot of what has been said about the fossil record. And when they have, the only thing those holding to Darwinism can do is say, “Well you are not a real scientists, you are just masking creationism, you are denied tenure.” That is the point I want to make. Any time a credible challenge is offered it is dismissed.

    On the other hand, I don’t know what other alternatives there are. We either evolved according to Darwin’s theory, or we were created by a God ex nihilo. If the former is true, the latter cannot be. If the latter is true, the former cannot be. It’s that black and white. And if Darwinism is true in any real sense, then the Scripture is packed full of lies. And if the Bible is a lie, then any person who believes it is living a meaningless, hopeless existence. Even the apostle says this in Corinthians: IF the Resurrection of Jesus did not happen, we are hopeless.

    And history vaildates the existence and crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That’s all I have to offer you and I accept that as truth. So regardless of whether or not you have ‘evidence’ or ‘proof’ it is has to account for the Bible at some point. The problem is the manner in which you view the Bible: as if it were some mystical book full of fairy tales as opposed to an historical document that has been handed down through the ages by faithful people. In that sense, the Bible is much like, say, Caesar’s Wars, or Josephus, or any other historical book that people give credence to. But the Christian believes that while it is such an historical document, it doesn’t stop there.


    PS–I don’t think ‘supernatural beliefs’ are ‘outside the scope of science.’

    PPS–Can you demonstrate for me where, at any level of the educational cycle, an institution has entertained alongside it’s courses in Darwinian evolution, alternative views for diversity, origin, and change in species?

  58. “Whales breathe air because they used to walk on land.”

    The teacher is teaching accepted science that is fully backed by the fossil and genetic evidence.

    “And plenty of scientists have debunked a lot of what has been said about the fossil record.”

    It would seem that you believe them. Would you like to discuss any particular specific claim?

    “And if the Bible is a lie, then any person who believes it is living a meaningless, hopeless existence.”

    So this is the real justification for the religious war on evolution.

    “alternative views for diversity, origin, and change in species”

    There are no scientific alternative views.

  59. Can you have such confidence in your ‘evidence’, in your ’scripture’ (Darwin), and in your prophets (Dawkins, Hitchens, et al)? My evidence is the empty tomb. It is irrefutable. But if I cannot trust the first words, I’ll never be able to accept the last words which promise that He will someday recreate a new heavens and a new earth. Nor, for that matter will I be able to trust anything in between. And this is just the theology.

    Oh the “empty tomb” Which one .?Thier are two claimed “empty tombs” . Which is the right one?

  60. Chris,

    I’m not sure what you are talking about. I am talking about the empty tomb of the Resurrected Jesus. Thanks for stopping by.


    Here’s the main problem that I see with Darwinian evolution: It serves a purely biological end and not a theological one. But you see the earth, the heavens, the universe, all serve a Theological end. The world we are told was made by and for Jesus Christ. So every biological function, every tiniest diversity among species, every life and every death is for Jesus Christ.

    Darwinian evolution serves no other purpose save for Darwinian evolution. It ‘exists’ to serve only itself and in the end brings no glory to God. It is simply beyond my ability to believe–even before I became a Christian–that I serve no purpose on this planet, that this life is utterly meaningless. I just cannot believe it. Frankly, I don’t know how any one can believe it.


  61. “evolution serves no other purpose”

    Well, astronomy doesn’t serve much purpose. Why has the US spent a few billion dollars on the Hubble Space Telescope? In the hope that it will lead to a cure for cancer? No, wait, that’s what biological research is for. In hopes of learning the cause and possible cures for genetic diseases? No, not astronomy, that’s what the NIH research is for. I would assume that your children are not going to get MDs or PhDs in medicine or genetics in order to qualify for NIH research funds.

    “this life is utterly meaningless”

    Well, don’t try to make anyone else happy. Don’t have friends that you care about and that care about you. Don’t go to work every day in order to do a good job to earn your paycheck. Don’t volunteer your time and energy. Don’t give your money to the Red Cross, Salvation Army, International Rescue Committee, Safe Place, a university, or a non-profit that exists to help people less fortunate than oneself. Don’t actually do anything “meaningful”.

  62. Mike,

    Here’s my full quote in context:

    “It is simply beyond my ability to believe–even before I became a Christian–that I serve no purpose on this planet, that this life is utterly meaningless. I just cannot believe it.”

    Now, there you can see that I am not saying what you quoted and commented on. I said it is impossible for me to believe that my life is meaningless. However, Darwinian evolution renders life meaningless because it only serves its own ends.

    I agree, astronomy serves virtually no purpose and it is, for all intents and purposes, a waste of money. It does, however, serve to give us a lot of pretty pictures which only prove the words of Psalm 19 true.

    PS–I don’t need to recite my record of donations, volunteerism, etc to you in order to be justified. But I will say this, if you are doing those things as an end to themselves apart from Christ, they are, indeed, meaningless. Sorry. You, like evolution, serve only yourself.


  63. All,

    For those of you debating me, here’s the irony: I’m not even a proponent of ID, I haven’t seen the film (and likely won’t), and I have never denied the right of scientists to teach evolution in schools If you read my essay above, you see exactly what it is that I am challenging with the post. But I suspect some people like to argue more than actually read.


  64. “but they want no one to challenge the premises of that dogma.”

    Scientists would be open to any scientific challenge. But there’s no science in the movie Expelled and there’s no science in “intelligent design”.

    The fundamental scientific “premise” is that everything in this universe is “natural”. So yes, science is not interested in “challenges” from believers in the “supernatural” because that has no relevance to science.

    But when religious people try to get their politicians to pass laws requiring “bad science” to be taught in a high school classroom, scientists get very angry. And the people behind Expelled are trying to do that.

  65. Mike,

    No they are not. They are pointing out the bias and hostility that exists agaist people who disagree with Darwin whether it is Michael Denton or Michael Behe or William Dembski or any other credible scientist. Scienists have no right to be angry about anything. They just can’t handle the fact that they will have to defend something that is indefensible from any number of angles. Nice try, and thanks again.


  66. State legislators have introduced anti-evolution laws in Florida, Missouri, and Louisiana. All the proposed laws are similar. Wording that is very similar to these laws appears at:

    So the expelled movie blog is trying to gain public support for these laws.

    The AAAS is not happy:

    “Scientists have no right to be angry about anything.”

    Do you get angry when someone repeatedly lies to you?

  67. Mike,

    I do not live in Florida, Missouri, or Lousiana so I am not certain what your point is. The expelled movie is pointing out that bias and prejudice against those who find scientific reasons to disagree with Darwinian evolution. I do not know who the AAAS is nor I particularly care about whether they are happy or not.

    No, I don’t get angry. I consider that all men are liars and that only God is Truth.

    Yes, I do get angry when pseudo intellectuals like yourself continue to try and make the case that I am little more than a uber-evolved ape. I know, I know, I know, that’s not what Darwinian evolution posits. I get angry when people try to tell me that God did not create me, that I am the byproduct of mere chance that I am lucky to be here, and that, for all intents and purposes, I am hopelessly locked into some atheistic evolutionary cycle or progression.

    I get angry when people deny the Creator who gave them life in the first place and by implication deny the saving work of Jesus Christ. But it is not really anger as much as it is profound sorrow that you would choose to live without Christ instead of with Him. And why? Because you would rather believe that you are the product of mindless happenstance and thoughtless chemical combinations.

    That is sad. Really. Pathetically. Sad.


    PS–I am terribly frightened by the anger of the eggheads. Terribly….oooohhhh!!!

    PPS–Now for a link of my own: Check this out Mike. I think you might be surprised.

  68. “prejudice against those who find scientific reasons”

    Oopsie. You have misused “scientific” in that sentence. It is obvious that their reasons are religious. Go see the silly movie Expelled – Ben Stein will explain it to you. Yes, there is prejudice against religious reasons – so what?

    “you would rather believe”

    I accept the scientific evidence. Do you have any contrary scientific evidence?

    “link of my own”

    O’Leary’s nonsense sentences are so confusing that I can’t even figure out what point she is trying to make.

    It would seem that the discussion is about “abiogenesis” versus “panspermia”. But “panspermia” simply means “abiogenesis” somewhere else. Neither are related to evolution. Both are scientific theories. ID is “not even science”. There is no “argument” in any of O’Leary’s nonsense.

  69. Mike,

    If you can’t figure out O’Leary, that is your problem. However, she did make a point about R Dawkins.

    Thanks for the conversation, but it is going nowhere and I have other things to write about. I am glad, however, that you have finally confessed your bias against religion. That goes a long way to understanding your point of view.

    Good luck with that whole ‘I don’t believe in god thing.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s