Sunday, May 4, 2008

Doctor's letter to Blade on Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed, the Ben Stein Film

April 28, 2008

Dear Sirs:

What Expelled tells us about Darwinists is not new. In the 1980’s, a Newsweek article quoted an evolutionist saying he wished he were in something “more intellectually honest –like used car sales.”

In Yonke’s article, Prof. Carroll displays the typical attitude of evolutionists, saying scientists who don’t agree with the establishment can’t be considered “literate.” He refers to great earth age and descent from primates as “facts.” Yet, so much said about origins of life is conjecture with “evidence” interpreted to prop up a theory that life has no designing hand. Yet, many of us marvel at the “irreducible complexity” of DNA –and were doing so even before ID theorists used the phrase.

Debate confusion: those who oppose ID in the classroom wrongly believe the goal is to teach religion. Even atheist Dawkins speculated that aliens could have designed earth-life. Some ID scientists believe in common descent from lower life forms. All acknowledge natural selection within species. All Creationists are ID theorists, believing in an intelligence behind the origin of life–but not all ID theorists are 6-day creationists, Religious Right, or Bible believers. Some believe Darwin describes the Creator’s plan.

Some of us believe that God “spoke” things into being from His “Mind” with knowledge and power that exceed our own–-the way Christ performed miracles-–the way we can activate knowledge with a computer.

The biblical writer John says Jesus is the Logos through whom all things were created. I didn’t find evidence to contradict that in my science studies. One scientist in the film suffered for saying medical doctors did not have to believe or use Darwin’s theory of common descent to practice medicine. Yet, this is true. It’s also true that the theory lends itself to justify atheism, abortion, euthanasia, and eugenics –as Stein points out.

Sincerely,

Jonathan E. Rohrs, M.D.

_______________________________________

To this, the infamous liberal blogger, expired Catholic, Mud-rake, commented:

Odd that, although I went to a Catholic university and took many biology, chemistry and physics classes, I never found evidence that John was wrong either, Of course, Religious Studies was not located in the Science Building.

Posted by mud_rake at 9:38 AM


To which I replied:

Exactly, Mud-rake. You don't find any EVIDENCE to contradict a designer in your science classes.

--and in fact, the point the medical doctor was making is that the irreducible complexity of the cell is a good reason to conclude there was some kind of designer. Some intelligence had to put that cell together --it couldn't evolve from non-living matter in all its complexity and engineering genius without some intelligent agent.

So we aren't talking about "god" per se, but the scientific evidence for intelligent design behind DNA, the universe, etc.

Now that they've unraveled DNA, objective observers see more SCIENTIFIC evidence to interpret as support for design theory than for pure unguided Darwinistic naturalism. That's why there is a controversy.

The atheistic Darwinists are the hostile ones, fueling the rest of society's anger at those who would dare to question Darwin. Most people have just unquestioningly accepted that science proves Darwin --when, in fact, it does not. They are digging their heels in to suppress dissent and deny that those who question any part of Darwin can be scientists and they call the opposition "know nothings"--in part because so many of the true Darwinian scientists are atheists defending their religion of atheism.

It's not the ID scientists who are hostile to science; they are using it and drawing the only sensible conclusion --that some intelligent agent initiated life. I'm told that many of these ID scientists DO accept common descent of humans from primates as Darwin speculated would be proven by fossils (which speculation has not been proven by the fossil record to date.) They just disagree with Darwin' theory that the process was unguided,unplanned happenstance.

All fossils show is that some extinct creatures shared common design features with creatures living today. Fossils can't really show parentage. And shared DNA of primates and humans cannot account for the vast differences between the two--the fact that primates still beget primates and humans still beget humans--and the fact that nothing seems to be transitioning today --not even slowly. A common designer, however, could explain the shared features of DNA. AFter all, just because you and your pets have eyes and lungs and hearts, etc. doesn't prove you are "related" genetically by intergenerational descent from a common ancestor.

The Bible says each creature was designed to procreate after its own kind. That's what the present-day, observed evidence supports, incidentally.




"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

19 comments:

Darron S said...

You can bury your head in the sand and deny the evidence until you're blue in the face. However, that's not going to change anything. We have literally THOUSANDS of transitional homonid fossils:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

We have mapped the migration of homonids across the planet, we've found DNA evidence of our relation to Neandertals. We've mapped the time periods during which each of the various homonid species lived which you can see here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#timeline

What more evidence of common descent do you want? You won't accept the exceptional similarity of our DNA? You won't accept measured fossil transitions? We've observed speciation in nature. So what would make you accept common descent? Cheers!

Jeanette said...

Intelligent Design is a science that states the cells are so complex there had to be some sort of intelligence to create it.

Maybe you think it's a robot?

Creationism is a Christian belief that God created everything by speaking it into being. I don't know how long God's days were when He created everything, but the fossils prove something existed before man. We can't deny that. It doesn't mean He didn't create it and ID is just another science that postulates who or what the intelligent designer was. I believe it was God and I'm not hiding my head in the sand when I say I am a creationist, but I do allow for God to have had longer days or to have had His six days spread out over eons of years.

He is not bound by the laws of physics and can defy them since He created them.

You're confusing ID and Creationism and they are not necessarily the same thing.

Darron S said...

Intelligent Design is a science that states the cells are so complex there had to be some sort of intelligence to create it.

Hey Jeanette, unfortunately that's not a science, but rather a cop-out. Saying that something is "too complex" is a slap in the face to all the scientific discoveries that humankind has made to date!

So, here's what we're going to do. Rather than just throwing our hands up and saying "cells are so complex there had to be some intelligence to create it", we will put our biochemists and biologists and other scientists to work doing experiments to understand how organic molecules lead naturally to the first self-replicating organisms and on to higher forms of life. If that doesn't pan our, we'll come up with another scientific hypothesis and go to work performing experiments to see if we can find an answer to the riddle of abiogenesis. Wait, there are already many scientists out there doing this work now!

Giving an answer like "it's too complex, so must have been the work of god" is not giving nature enough credit for her creativity, nor us enough credit for our tenacity in figuring out her riddles! Cheers!

mud_rake said...

Odd that you don't mention that the "Doctor" is your husband.

kooz said...

Darron,
Those fossils were strewn across the world and buried by the Flood of Noah's day...the flood displaced all these fossils...which makes people like you think they're older..but really are only deeper because of the catastrophe of the flood. Carobn dating is a false tool of science.

Jeanette said...

When science can replicate one cell dividing enough times and with the DNA in it to produce a human being then I will accept your atheistic views. But science can't replicate real life, can it, so you have to try and try and try again ad nauseum.

Now an Intelligent Being (I believe it is God) created it many times over and can still replicate it.


ID is a science that does not state God created anything but at least acknowledges something more intelligent than what we have now made something out of nothing.

When science can make something out of nothing come back and talk to me. Otherwise your science is fiction.

Mudrake, after I called you sick with OCD over Barb and her family and suggested you see a mental professional to help you along with someone to lead you to salvation of your soul you cut off comments to that post blaming Barb for five posts.

At least she isn't going to other blogs to tell she has received bad press from you.

You really need to seek help, and I'm not being sarcastic the way you are. You're like a dog with a bone as far as Barb is concerned. You won't let go. If I were Barb I would insist the local police and ISP identify you as I seriously think you pose a serious threat to her physically. And also to her family.

Barb said...

About the scientists inventing life in a lab, Jeanette:

Rob said on either my previous blog on the film --or CA's at his blog, 21st CenturyChristian (My blogroll)

that all it will prove if they invent life in a lab is that it takes creative intelligence to invent life.

Which is what the ID folks are saying --that it didn't happen by natural occurrence without a designer/engineer/intelligence behind it.

So even if they do it in a lab, they won't prove Darwin's theory that naturalism alone could do it.

If I recall, Darron S., the neanderthals are simply proven by DNA to be more human than you thought --in fact, just humans. Look at the varieties of humans in their facial bone structures and tell me why any early humans, with their rickets and deformities from inter-marrying, etc. have to be viewed as transitional stages of evolution to modern man.

I say, they were either God's unique creation as they were --or degraded by natural processes such as in-breeding within families that produce deformities by multiplying genetic defects --just as occurs today -- genetic defects are part of the fall of man.

Barb said...

Any pictures made from fossils of "primitive" man just look like people we see today, to me.

Barb said...

Remember those famous horse evolution pictures? I hear those have been debunked somehow.

Barb said...

Actually, J, I can't say I have never gone elsewhere to complain about Mudrake's treatment of me --specifically the hypocrisey of his complaint that right-wing blogs block his insults--while censoring on his own blog. And I have complained to his blog cronies that they should not support Mudrake in his publication of personal info as a tactic of dissent because it does make him seem dangerous and in line for the looney bin. And except for Microdot, his buddies agree that he ought not be doing that.

Maybe I will talk to the police about the level of hostility expressed on blogs by MR. I have saved a lot of the incriminating evidence that makes him seem dangerous.

Barb said...

As for the French blog, they don't like Mud rake much themselves --because he only goes there to morosely and sourly complain about me -and they do have a few other interests over there. But it is interesting how they never seem to quit talking about you and/or me on that blog. We made a lasting impression that they keep talking about us. I check in there once a week or so just to see if they are still alive and kickin' and staying away from religion as they claim they want to do --but don't do very well.

Barb said...

Kooz, do you now have a blog?

Christian Apologist said...

kooz said...
Darron,
Those fossils were strewn across the world and buried by the Flood of Noah's day...the flood displaced all these fossils...which makes people like you think they're older..but really are only deeper because of the catastrophe of the flood. Carobn dating is a false tool of science.


would you care to offer any proof of the above assertions? Its easy enough to say that the strata were the result of the flood and carbon dating false but a much harder thing to prove it.

Barb said...

Creationists do have scientific reasons for what they say about the world wide flood --they have tons of info on Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research and Intelligent Design websites. They have scientists who know the language of science, the techniques and the info --and have science educations and careers --even in secular arena.

It's just as easy for Darwinists to make claims --and so they do --without replicable and verifiable "evidence."

Barb said...

The strata which evolutionists attributed to great ages of the earth have been reproduced in one catastrophe at Mt. St. helens.

Christian Apologist said...

Barb said...
The strata which evolutionists attributed to great ages of the earth have been reproduced in one catastrophe at Mt. St. helens.


Yes Mt. St. Helen reproduced strata. but what it cannot reproduce is the different ages within each strata that we observe most everywhere else. The age of the earth is not attributed to the existence of strata but to the potassium argon dating of rocks.

While the precision of the different dating methods is debateable the accuracy of them is not. In anticipation of the question on the difference between accuracy and precision I will provide an example. When we use the value pi in geometry we commonly round it off to 2 significant digits. (i.e. 3.14) This is accurate for most purposes. A more precise value of pi would be 3.141592654....ad nauseum.

As for the CSR I have never encountered a convincing scientific argument from them for a young earth.

Barb said...

Hubby says the radiometric dating is not reliable back as far as they go because it depends on the mother and daughter atoms in a rock,e .g., and something about that makes the evidence debateable.

RATE is a group of creation scientists who ARE scientists --who are studying Radiometric Age of the Earth. Probably findable on the web.

If it were so all-fired foolproof --the age of the strata --we wouldn't have the dispute. My understanding is that MANY things about Mt. St. Helens lend credibility to the assertions of young earth creationists --who attribute canyons, e.g., to catastrophe like earthquakes and volcanoes and floods --and not to millions of years of erosion of rivers through rock.

Christian Apologist said...

If it were so all-fired foolproof --the age of the strata --we wouldn't have the dispute. My understanding is that MANY things about Mt. St. Helens lend credibility to the assertions of young earth creationists --who attribute canyons, e.g., to catastrophe like earthquakes and volcanoes and floods --and not to millions of years of erosion of rivers through rock.

Incest, child rape, homosexuality, murder, etc. are all undeniably wrong and yet people do all these things. The fact that the earth orbits around the sun is a pretty indisputable fact but I bet you'll find people today who would maintain that this is not the case.

As for the flood causing canyons... please. I've never seen it personally but I understand the Grand canyon is quite...curvy. If such a thing were actually the result of water runoff from a massive flood you would expect it to much, much straighter instead of turning back on itself.

Barb said...

I'm not saying that flooding caused the Grand Canyon -- It does look like a giant crack in the earth, however, and nothing made by a river.

The idea is that earthquakes and volcanoes do cause the earth to be upheaved and water also has great pressure --and rivers channel through the crevasses afterward --not making the crevasses at all --and not making them over billions of years of erosion as great age geologists would claim (as Darwin did) --but the crevasses can be made quickly by the earthquakes (for sure) -and layers of sedimentation form quickly -- from various natural and/or God-directed catastrophic occurences--or even in the creation process itself --

Notice that the strata in mountains and cliff sides run at angles and are broken --as though they were once sedimentary layers laid down by water which got upheaved.

Granted, I am no geologist. But I try to pay attention when both sides make their claims. And I hear a lot of speculation in the orthodox explanations. Read a national geog on origins and note all the "may have" "possibly" "probably" --"likely." and so on and on.