• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] See the Movie EXPELLED - atheist darwinism vs God

  • Thread starter Thread starter BobRyan
  • Start date Start date
No definition and metric for information yet...

BobRyan said:
That is true. The "Sequence was contrived" and shortly after Simpson's book was published even atheist darwinists were going on record admitting that the sequence had been faked "it never happened in nature" is their exact quote.
Sources? Full quotes in context?

In fact atheist darwinist now flatly deny that "smooth transitional sequences" even happen - though fraudulently portrayed in that horse series in children's text books and at the Smithsonian.
Sources?
 
Patashu said:
We have not observed any evolutionary sequences, no, but the fact is that the evolutionary explanation for the fossils we see is the BEST explanation for them.

"Best for atheism" because no matter how many frauds and hoaxes in the "Story telling of how one thing came from another" (story telling that Colin Patterson admits is NOT SCIENCE) it is the ONLY choice for atheists.

Obviously.

in Christ,

Bob
 
jwu said:
No definition and metric for information yet...

BobRyan said:
That is true. The "Sequence was contrived" and shortly after Simpson's book was published even atheist darwinists were going on record admitting that the sequence had been faked "it never happened in nature" is their exact quote.
Sources? Full quotes in context?

In fact atheist darwinist now flatly deny that "smooth transitional sequences" even happen - though fraudulently portrayed in that horse series in children's text books and at the Smithsonian.
Sources?

I have them.

Question for you first - are you taking the position that you have actually looked at Simpson's 1950's horse series or the Smithsonian exhibit or some science text book given to children showing that series "As if it was fact" and that you agree with the smooth transitional form sequence that it provides?

Or are you saying that having looked at it -- you are undecided as to whether it is a contrived fraud or whether it could actualy be accurate.

You seem to hedge on this question each time I ask it -- as if you don't want to take a position that might show an objective commitment to Darwinism that is "testable".

But this is a simple question -- surely it is one or the other of the options I have given -- or give your own option.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Question for you first - are you taking the position that you have actually looked at Simpson's 1950's horse series or the Smithsonian exhibit or some science text book given to children showing that series "As if it was fact" and that you agree with the smooth transitional form sequence that it provides?

Or are you saying that having looked at it -- you are undecided as to whether it is a contrived fraud or whether it could actualy be accurate.

You seem to hedge on this question each time I ask it -- as if you don't want to take a position that might show an objective commitment to Darwinism that is "testable".
I already have posted that i'd like to know about any frauds that might be involved with Simpson's works. I take the position that it reasonably represents the available evidence that existed at that time (1951). If there are cases of frauds or plain mistakes in it, then these should be corrected.

I don't have any commitment towards "Darwinism". The ToE has gone a long way since Darwin, and changed a lot. Darwin probably wouldn't even recognize a good part of the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution.

I'm looking forward to your critique of Simpson's work in another thread, and of course the sources of the above claims, in full context.
 
Question for you first - are you taking the position that you have actually looked at Simpson's 1950's horse series or the Smithsonian exhibit or some science text book given to children showing that series "As if it was fact" and that you agree with the smooth transitional form sequence that it provides?

Or are you saying that having looked at it -- you are undecided as to whether it is a contrived fraud or whether it could actualy be accurate.

You seem to hedge on this question each time I ask it -- as if you don't want to take a position that might show an objective commitment to Darwinism that is "testable".

jwu said:
I already have posted that i'd like to know about any frauds that might be involved with Simpson's works. I take the position that it reasonably represents the available evidence that existed at that time (1951). If there are cases of frauds or plain mistakes in it, then these should be corrected.

I don't have any commitment towards "Darwinism". The ToE has gone a long way since Darwin, and changed a lot. Darwin probably wouldn't even recognize a good part of the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution.

1. I take your response as your continued endorsement and support of Simpson's horse series.
(Hint even Atheist Darwinists admit today "IT never happened in nature".)

However wouldn't you at least have to admit that going from what is essentially the modern day tree dwelling Hyrax and "showing smooth transitional form sequences" as that sequence does -- makes a good argument for Darwinist evolutionism?

2. What in the world does ToE have to do with Darwinism???


I'm looking forward to your critique of Simpson's work in another thread, and of course the sources of the above claims, in full context.

I believe you are admitting that the loss of that perfect example of smooth transitional form sequence should not be taken lightly after all it IS important as "The best example of darwinist evolutionism" that we know of --

But remember a key part of atheist darwinism is "story telling" not science and if that is the "method" you should expect that a lot of story telling (rather than factual data) went into the the "Sequence of smooth transitional forms". Imagine looking at all the fossils available to us today and having the freedom to simply "arrange whatever sequence that pleased you" AS IF that is the way the fossils were actually found "in the rocks" -- think of the temptation. Think of the number of "amazing sequences" you could invent using such fraudulent practices.

Why -- it's almost endless. But you might want to try a good test case out on the gullible school children first.

And so the other thread will be started.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Let's not derail this thread (which is about the movie Expelled) and discuss all these things in the other one.
 
jwu said:
I'm looking forward to your critique of Simpson's work in another thread, and of course the sources of the above claims, in full context.

you are in luck -- the thread is started exposing the junk-science fraud of atheist darwinism's 50 year promotion of the fraudulent horse series from 1951 that "never happened in nature" but was published and forced onto school children "Anyway".

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31953

BTW - I want to thank JWU for providing some of the much needed illustration making this case about that junk-science problem with Darwinism.

Enjoy!

Bob
 
I read Stein's interview in Newsweek. Haven't seen the film, but in the interview, he lied about the Sternberg case, saying that he had been fired. In fact, Sternberg had lied on the complaint he submitted, falsely claiming to have been an employee of the Smithsonian, for which his complaint was dismissed.

If he lied about that, I have no doubt that he would lie about other things as well. I notice that the producers are now trying to get attendance up by offering financial inducements to churches that steer kids their way.

http://www.getexpelled.com/schools.php

It must have helped a bit. "Expelled" moved up from #64 to this:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/cha ... 008&p=.htm

Scroll down; it's in there.
 
The Barbarian said:
I read Stein's interview in Newsweek. Haven't seen the film,

How about allowing youself to at least view the wingclips list posted two posts up??

click and view -- see what is happening in the open marketplace of ideas.

but in the interview, he lied about the Sternberg case, saying that he had been fired. In fact, Sternberg had lied on the complaint he submitted, falsely claiming to have been an employee of the Smithsonian, for which his complaint was dismissed.

If he lied about that, I have no doubt that he would lie about other things as well.

When you attack each of the people in the video who claim they were being censored and attacked --- you simply increase the problem with your argument.

The whole point of the movie is that rank censorship and shutting down academic freedom (maybe by calling everyone a liar that dares to expose data that does not flatter darwinism) -- seems to be ringing a bell in your methods and response -- though you don't want to admit it to yourself while apparently wanting to demonstrate it to the group here.

Since you have not link to actual sources and facts in your diatribe against Sternberg -- let me help your readers with some facts.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2399


Bob
 
University of Idaho president Timothy White issued an edict proclaiming that it is now “inappropriate†for anyone to teach “views that differ from evolution†in any “life, earth, and physical science courses."


The National Center for Science Education sent out a letter urging all 50 state governors to restrict teaching the controversies of Darwinian evolution.


The Ohio State Board of Education was pressured by the ACLU to repeal its Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plan and revert to teaching only those items which support Darwinism, essentially censoring the state's science teachers from expressing any criticism of Darwinian evolution at all.


Cornell University President Hunter Rawlings, III, delivered a polemic speech denouncing intelligent design and scientists and scholars researching the theory.


Chemistry professor Nancy Bryson lost her job at a state university after she gave a lecture on scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory to a group of honors students.


Law professor Francis Beckwith had his tenure challenged at Baylor University because he had expressed a professional opinion that it was constitutionally acceptable to teach intelligent design in public school classrooms.


Three days before graduate student Bryan Leonard's dissertation defense was to take place, Darwinist professors at Ohio State University accused Leonard of "unethical human-subject experimentation" because he taught students about scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory.


High school teacher Roger DeHart was driven from his public school simply because he wanted his students to learn about both sides of the scientific debate over Darwinian evolution.


Biology professor P.Z. Myers at the University of Minnesota wrote this about anyone supporting intelligent design or even just questioning modern evolutionary theory: “Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy farright politicians.â€Â
 
Auriol Stevens
Editor
Times Higher Education Supplement
Admiral House
66-68 East Smithfield
London E1 9XY

16 March 1995

Dear Ms Stevens,

I know that my article on the decline of the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution has caused some controversy and is bound, if published, to cause even more. May I draw your attention to two points that I believe are important?

The first is that it has been said, by some scientists, that I am a secret creationist opposed to neo-Darwinism for religious reasons. I am not a creationist and my criticisms of the neo- Darwinist mechanism are purely scientific objections -- as any reading of the article itself clearly shows.

The second point is far more important. I believe that the great strength of science and the scientific method is its openness to debate. Science is strong because errors are exposed through the process of open argument and counter-argument. Science does not need vigilante scientists to guard the gates against heretics. If the heresy is true it will become accepted. If false, it will be shown to be false, by rational discourse.

In his "The Open Society and its Enemies" Sir Karl Popper says that the great value of the scientific method is that it saves us from "The tyranny of opinion". If neo-Darwinists can counter the evidence I present, let them do so. If they seek to prevent my writing being published because they don't like it, then it is not just I that fall victim to the "tyranny of opinion", it is all of us.

If this article were about any other subject -- finance, politics, the economy -- I know it would be welcomed as well- written and thought-provoking even if its claims were controversial. It is only because it is about neo-Darwinism, a subject on which some biologists feel insecure and ultra- sensitive, that doubts have been raised about it.

Best wishes

Yours sincerely
Richard Milton

Notice that rank censorship attempted against milton of the form "IF you believe Bible creationism then you have nothing to say and should be censored" AS IF Christians today are free to demand that kind of censorship of the form" IF you believe in atheism then you have nothing to say and any science related report on evolution that you claim to write should be banned".

Odd how atheist evolutionists "get the point" when it is the Christians doing the censorship.!!
 
The article below was commissioned in February 1995 by the British weekly newspaper, "Times Higher Education Supplement" to appear in March 1995. It has been censored because it challenges, scientifically, the empirical foundations of the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution.

The article was "spiked" by the “THES†Following a campaign against it by Richard Dawkins, of Oxford University.

Neo-Darwinism: time to reconsider
By Richard Milton

It was the dazzling gains made by science and technology in the nineteenth century through the application of rational analysis that led people to think of applying reason to other fields.

Following the brilliant success of reason and method in physics and chemistry -- especially in medicine -- it was natural for science to seek to apply the same analytical tool to the most intractable and complex problems: human society and economic affairs; human psychology; and even the origin and development of life itself. The result was the great mechanistic philosophies of the last century: Marxism, Freudianism and Darwinism.

The simplicities and certainties of these systems mirrored the intellectually well-ordered life of Victorian society with its authoritarian values and institutionalised prejudices. Now, a century later, all three systems have run their course, have been measured by history, and have been ultimately found to be inadequate tools of explanation.

Unlike Marx and Freud, Darwin himself remains esteemed both as a highly original thinker and as a careful researcher (his study of fossil barnacles remains a text book example for palaeontologists). But the theory that bears his name was transformed in the early years of this century into the mechanistic, reductionist theory of neo-Darwinism: the theory that living creatures are machines whose only goal is genetic replication -- a matter of chemistry and statistics; or, in the words of professor Jacques Monod, director of the Pasteur Institute, a matter only of "chance and necessity". [1]

And while the evidence for evolution itself remains persuasive -- especially the homologies that are found in comparative anatomy and molecular biology of many different species -- much of the empirical evidence that was formerly believed to support the neo-Darwinian mechanism of chance mutation coupled with natural selection has melted away like snow on a spring morning, through better observation and more careful analysis.

Marxist, Freudian and neo-Darwinist systems of thought ultimately failed for the same reason; that they sought to use mechanistic reductionism to explain and predict systems that we now know are complexity-related, and cannot be explained as the sum of the parts.

In the case of neo-Darwinism, it was not the mysteries of the mind or of the economy that were explained. It was the origin of the first single-celled organism in the primeval oceans, and its development into the plant and animal kingdoms of today by a strictly blind process of chance genetic mutation working with natural selection.

In the first five decades of this century -- the heyday of the theory -- zoologists, palaeontologists and comparative anatomists assembled the impressive exhibits that generations of school children have seen in Natural History Museums the world over: the evolution of the horse family; the fossils that illustrate the transition from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal; and the discovery of astonishing extinct species such as "Archaeopteryx", apparently half-reptile, half-bird.

Over successive decades, these exhibits have been first disputed, then downgraded, and finally shunted off to obscure museum basements, as further research has shown them to be flawed or misconceived.

Anyone educated in a western country in the last forty years will recall being shown a chart of the evolution of the horse from "Eohippus", a small dog-like creature in the Eocene period 50 million years ago, to "Mesohippus", a sheep-sized animal of 30 million years ago, eventually to "Dinohippus", the size of a Shetland pony. This chart was drawn in 1950 by Harvard's professor of palaeontology George Simpson, to accompany his standard text book, "Horses", which encapsulated all the research done by the American Museum of Natural History in the previous half century.

Simpson plainly believed that his evidence was incontrovertible because he wrote, 'The history of the horse family is still one of the clearest and most convincing for showing that organisms really have evolved. . . There really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact. The question has been decisively answered in the affirmative.' [2]
...
more

http://www.lauralee.com/milton2.htm

Click the link to see the rest of the censored article.

Bob
 
Commentary on the web about rank censorship being practiced with oversight by Dawkins.

Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances.

We have seen this same "unscientific" approach applied to archaeology and anthropology, where "scientists" simply refuse to prove their theories yet appoint themselves as the final arbiters of "the facts". It would be naive to think that the scientists who cooperated in the production of the series were unaware that there would be no counter-balancing presentation by critics of Darwins theory.

Richard Milton is a science journalist. He had been an ardent true believer in Darwinian doctrine until his investigative instincts kicked in one day. After 20 years of studying and writing about evolution, he suddenly realised that there were many disconcerting holes in the theory. He decided to try to allay his doubts and prove the theory to himself by using the standard methods of investigative journalism.

Milton became a regular visitor to Londons famed Natural History Museum. He painstakingly put every main tenet and classic proof of Darwinism to the test. The results shocked him. He found that the theory could not even stand up to the rigours of routine investigative journalism.

The veteran science writer took a bold step and published a book titled The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. It is clear that the Darwinian myth had been shattered for him, but many more myths about science would also be crushed after his book came out. Milton says:

I experienced the witch-hunting activity of the Darwinist police at first hand it was deeply disappointing to find myself being described by a prominent Oxford zoologist [Richard Dawkins] as "loony", "stupid" and "in need of psychiatric help" in response to purely scientific reporting.

(Does this sound like stories that came out of the Soviet Union 20 years ago when dissident scientists there started speaking out?)

Dawkins launched a letter-writing campaign to newspaper editors, implying that Milton was a "mole" creationist whose work should be dismissed. Anyone at all familiar with politics will recognise this as a standard Machiavellian by-the-book "character assassination" tactic. Dawkins is a highly respected scientist, whose reputation and standing in the scientific community carry a great deal of weight.

According to Milton, the process came to a head when the London Times Higher Education Supplement commissioned him to write a critique of Darwinism. The publication foreshadowed his coming piece: "Next Week: Darwinism - Richard Milton goes on the attack". Dawkins caught wind of this and wasted no time in nipping this heresy in the bud. He contacted the editor, Auriol Stevens, and accused Milton of being a "creationist", and prevailed upon Stevens to pull the plug on the article. Milton learned of this behind-the-scenes backstabbing and wrote a letter of appeal to Stevens. In the end, she caved in to Dawkins and scratched the piece.

Imagine what would happen if a politician or bureaucrat used such pressure tactics to kill a story in the mass media. It would ignite a huge scandal. Not so with scientists, who seem to be regarded as "sacred cows" and beyond reproach. There are many disturbing facts related to these cases. Darwins theory of evolution is the only theory routinely taught in our public school system that has never been subjected to rigorous scrutiny; nor have any of the criticisms been allowed into the curriculum.

This is an interesting fact, because a recent poll showed that the American public wants the theory of evolution taught to their children; however, "71 per cent of the respondents say biology teachers should teach both Darwinism and scientific evidence against Darwinian theory". Nevertheless, there are no plans to implement this balanced approach.

It is ironic that Richard Dawkins has been appointed to the position of Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is a classic "Brain Police" stormtrooper, patrolling the neurological front lines. The Western scientific establishment and mass media pride themselves on being open public forums devoid of prejudice or censorship. However, no television program examining the flaws and weaknesses of Darwinism has ever been aired in Darwins home country or in America. A scientist who opposes the theory cannot get a paper published.

The Mysterious Origins of Man was not a frontal attack on Darwinism; it merely presented evidence that is considered anomalous by the precepts of his theory of evolution.

Returning to our bastions of intellectual integrity, Forest Mims was a solid and skilled science journalist. He had never been the centre of any controversy and so he was invited to write the most-read column in the prestigious Scientific American, "The Amateur Scientist", a task he gladly accepted. According to Mims, the magazines editor Jonathan Piel then learned that he also wrote articles for a number of Christian magazines. The editor called Mims into his office and confronted him.

"Do you believe in the theory of evolution?" Piel asked.

Mims replied, "No, and neither does Stephen Jay Gould."

His response did not affect Piels decision to bump Mims off the popular column after just three articles.

This has the unpleasant odour of a witch-hunt. The writer never publicly broadcast his private views or beliefs, so it would appear that the "stormtroopers" now believe they have orders to make sure "unapproved" thoughts are never publicly disclosed.

Bob
 
BobRyan said:
The Barbarian said:
I read Stein's interview in Newsweek. Haven't seen the film,

How about allowing youself to at least view the wingclips list posted two posts up??

click and view -- see what is happening in the open marketplace of ideas.

but in the interview, he lied about the Sternberg case, saying that he had been fired. In fact, Sternberg had lied on the complaint he submitted, falsely claiming to have been an employee of the Smithsonian, for which his complaint was dismissed.

If he lied about that, I have no doubt that he would lie about other things as well.

When you attack each of the people in the video who claim they were being censored and attacked --- you simply increase the problem with your argument.

The whole point of the movie is that rank censorship and shutting down academic freedom (maybe by calling everyone a liar that dares to expose data that does not flatter darwinism) -- seems to be ringing a bell in your methods and response -- though you don't want to admit it to yourself while apparently wanting to demonstrate it to the group here.

Bob

Ok kids, can we all see the logical fallacy being committed in the bolded?

Heck, I might start making falsermentauries and just claim "I am being attacked and censored!", that way whenever I exposed I can say "See!".

Why don't you ever respond to the postings instead of claiming prosecution? Can you deny the fact he lied or show any FACTUAL evidence that he didn't mislead? Where are your responses :)

These debates are evoloving poorly.
 
I love it , the most "substantive response" to my "allow yourself the luxury of actually looking at the material on the other side" is "now I'm being persecuted"??!!

I agree the argument must not be going well for you at this point.

Is there any actual fact you wanted to bring up on the topic of the thread?

Since you did not post any factual sources in your first diatribe against Sternberg or your lastest post -- here is some "help".

http://www.discovery.org/a/2399


Bob
 
Hint to the continued unbiased objective readers -- try independant sources. Don't go to the perps for a character review on 'their victims' when the victims complain.

So -- since there are some here determined NOT to look at any evidence on the side of the plaintiffs -

By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 19, 2005; Page A19

Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg made a fateful decision a year ago.
As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for "intelligent design," a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand -- subtle or not -- of an intelligent creator.

Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.

"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect federal employees from reprisals, examined e-mail traffic from these scientists and noted that "retaliation came in many forms . . . misinformation was disseminated through the Smithsonian Institution and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false."

"The rumor mill became so infected," James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, wrote to Sternberg, "that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your résumé] simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist."

The Washington Post and two other media outlets obtained a copy of the still-private report.
McVay, who is a political appointee of the Bush administration, acknowledged in the report that a fuller response from the Smithsonian might have tempered his conclusions. As Sternberg is not a Smithsonian employee -- the National Institutes of Health pays his salary -- the special counsel lacks the power to impose a legal remedy.

A spokeswoman for the Smithsonian Institution declined comment, noting that it has not received McVay's report.

"We do stand by evolution -- we are a scientific organization," said Linda St. Thomas, the spokeswoman. An official privately suggested that McVay might want to embarrass the institution.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01680.html

And of course we are reassured by the faithful devoted "we stand by evolution" argument rather than "we are open to going wherever the data leads us -- and science by its very nature is changing it's descriptive models every day -- it's a living document so to speak, open to critical review, open to challenges both new and old... in fact we WELCOME debate BECAUSE we are scientists not religionists devotedly holding to Atheist Darwinism NO MATTER WHAT".

Bob
 
I'm not really involved in the main argument here at this point, but could you please stop calling it "atheist darwinism" ?


It's really annoying, and you should know why.
 
The greatest thing about this thread is reading a certain person's posts and witnessing the total illusion they have about actually retorting.
 
Jayls5 said:
I'm not really involved in the main argument here at this point, but could you please stop calling it "atheist darwinism" ?


It's really annoying, and you should know why.

The term "atheist Darwinism" is a specific reference to the darwinist distaste for fellow evolutionists that argue in favor of I.D where the item in dispute is not evolution but rather "design" and "intelligence" going into the story of evolutionism. When you are willing to attack I.D you have to be willing to admit to the "distinctively atheist" point of your argument.

I.D has the main advantage OVER Atheist Darwinism that I.D does NOT require an "origins myth" like Abiogenesis OR the claim that all species today came from a common ancestor via undirected natural means "no matter what we find in nature to the contrary". I.D does not argue Hinuism, or Islaam, or Judaism or Budhist views nor does it attempt to get to "God" topics at all -- just the more basic element of "design". And when EVEN THAT is "to be attacked" then you have a "distinctively" and in fact "religiously" atheist argument about theology.

Obviously.

Since the Movie - Expelled is about the censorship and religious pogroms rallied against scientists that find in favor of I.D (primarily) -- it is appropriate to bring out the "distinctively atheist" flavor of the Darwinist argument in this case.

This point "occurred to Huxley" and it occurred to Dawkins and Provine "explicitly" when they were interviewed for Expelled -- as anyone who allowed themselves the luxury of actually watching the movie would know.

Bob
 
Back
Top