Expelled

[lunamoth]

"The discovery that naturalistic explanations can account for the workings of living things neither confirms nor denies the idea that a Creator is responsible for them. To believers, however, it does signify something important. It shows that their God created not a creaky little machine requiring constant and visible attention, but a true, genuine, independent world in which our existence is the product of material forces. Those who choose to reject God already know (and so do we) that they need not live in fear of His hand reaching into the sandbox to check our childish actions. God loves us, but He is perfectly willing to allow us to make our own mistakes, commit our own sins, make war on ourselves, and ravage the planet that is our home.

To some, the murderous reality of human nature is proof that God is absent or dead. The same reasoning would find God missing from the unpredictable fits and turns of an evolutionary tree. But the truth is deeper. In each case, a Deity determined to establish a world in which intelligent creatures would face authentic choices between good and evil, would have to fashion a distinct, material reality and then let His creation run. Neither the self-sufficiency of nature nor the reality of evil in the world mean God is absent. To a religious person, both signify something quite different--the stength of God's love and the reality of our freedom as His creatures."

--Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin's God

[Father Heathen]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

LOL

Seems Roli has not learned anything from all the threads on this very topic...

Well, his stance does require a lot of willful ignorance and self deceit.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by roli

Let me ask you a question, Do you believe in the probability that scientific professionals such as those... hypothetically exposed in the doc. expelled, are actually facing intimidating pressure from peers or superiors to not mention ID, Creationism, or anything pertaining to a creator for fear of their papers,grants lectures etc would be threaten.
Have you ever heard such things in your vast expereince.

Let me ask you some questions.

Do you believe that a scientific journal editor should be able to publish anything they choose without going through proper peer review?

Do you believe that a college professor with a steadily dropping publication output should get tenure anyway?

Do you believe that a part-time teacher who doesn't follow the curriculum for an Introduction to Biology class should have their contract renewed?

Do you believe that a university should host whatever a professor wants to post on it's servers?

Do you believe that a journalist has been blacklisted when they continue to write articles for a publication?

Do you believe that a physician who claims that evolution is irrelevant to medicine should not have their arguments challenged?

[Jeremy Mason]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Replace "realize" with "believe" and I think that would be a perfectly valid way of approaching science, even if I personally don't adhere to it.

#2 would fit my understanding in this particular situation.

Belief n.

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Define "robotic meat". If you're talking about the absence of soul, the "breath of God" or some other religious belief, then I disagree with your statement. If you're talking about consciousness, empathy or other arguably human traits, then I don't think they necessitate God.

Robotic meat would be a person void of an individual conscientiousness.

[Jeremy Mason]

Originally Posted by Women_Of_Reason

A toaster is not robotic meat (as you say).

Still waiting for an answer...

A toaster like robotic meat would have no conscientiousness.

[Jeremy Mason]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Applaud whom?

Scientist.

Originally Posted by mball1297

The old "argument from ignorance", huh? You can't possibly conceive of us having the ability to think on our own any way other than from God, so that must be the answer, right? It's just as likely that unintelligent forces produced our consciousness. I would ask the same thing as Women of Reason, why can't consciousness and the value of life exist if we're not made by God?

I believe that our conscientiousness was a gift of God so that his creation would have the ability to explore, search and ultimately know and develop a loving relationship with their Creator.

[Im an Atheist]

Originally Posted by roli

I have just watched this amazing eye opening video, which I have always had this from past articles and research, but this is sure to ruffle the feathers of some, as it did those who expelled the scientists.

My question and forgive me if this has already been discussed but it certainly begs the question " What is the big scare amongst the scientific community in well established universities, research centers, and other insitutions that house diverse experts in their field that cause them to shun those who even mention ID.

It makes me sit back and .... just a little!


...now of course the credibility of Ben Stien and those interviewed will be argued by someone on this forum, which would be a typical opening arguement ...but could we just take this whole documentry at face value and assume it's characters are real professionals and quite possiblly have lost their grants tenures ????/ or whatever.

What's your take on this????

I have just watched expelled myself, personally i believe that nothing could of make us to the exact detail we were made to, with our DNA, coding and cell division and all the organelles.

But im open to the theory that a God could of created it becuase it hasn't been disproven, it would be wrong of me to say i cant accept the theory

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Im an Atheist

But im open to the theory that a God could of created it becuase it hasn't been disproven, it would be wrong of me to say i cant accept the theory

Good! Then we can also accept the theory that I made it.

[Im an Atheist]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Good! Then we can also accept the theory that I made it.

I'm still an Athiest, i will just have the theory in the back of my mind until it is disproven or proven...

But that is what needs to be done, but its never going to happen in our lifetime, unless a miricale happens