I recently watched a documentary produced by Ben Stein and company titled, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. In it Ben Stein grapples with the ideas regarding The Theory of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. He makes a very strong argument against the Academic and Scientific communities and their repression of ideas on the subject not conforming to their own.

  This has long been a discourse on yet another politically charged subject. Evolution and the origin of the species is a theory (but is taught as fact in most places these days) when in fact by Scientific Academia’s own standards it can be nothing but a theory. One of the major flaws is science is unable to observe and therefore explain how life transitioned from elements on the periodic table into something truly alive. So how then do we define life? It is Dawkins, a profound evolutionary scientist and atheist who defines life as “possessing some kind of respiration and reproduction, principally reproduction”. Without it there is no life. Darwin’s writings began with pre-existing life and makes statements about mutation and adaptation using what Darwinists claim is "Natural Selection". But, natural selection driven by what catalyst or design information? Without a plan or design you're playing the statistical mathmatical odds. This is something we can calculate and the mathmatical odds are pretty much zero of it working this way. The words Darwinists use are very slippery when coupled with the concept of evolution and what do they actually mean when they say the word. That’s where the really fun debates begin.

  Each addresses it differently, quite differently. Science will embrace philosophy when it can use it to eliminate God. Religion magnifies philosophy to declare God. Intelligent design is built upon a foundation of what we can scientifically observe and measure but stops short of saying there is a God for the same reasons the evolutionary theorists must stop short of saying there is no God. That being there is insufficient science to measure and observe enough facts to substantiate either claim. This writer has no problem putting all the ideas in an arena and letting them compete as long as the debate is respectful and civil. I think we call that free speech in America.

  One very interesting point about the so called “Big Bang Theory” is that science itself takes us back to a point using mathematics based on facts and present day observation both of which are accepted scientific method by virtually 100% of the scientific community. However it is before the point of the bang where all of our ability to measure and calculate ceases to exist. Basically it is the point where science ends and only religion and philosophy can shed any light upon the subject. This is why Science is not Religion and errs when making any claims of fact about God. To claim there is or is no God is a personal statement of belief made in the absence of scientific fact. This is because the concept of God has no basis in any scientific method. The two are not conjoined. Therefore, in essence, we’ve come full circle and mankind is where we've always been, left with one of two choices. To believe in a benevolent God or not to believe. That is the question.

 

Pingbacks and trackbacks (1)+

Comments are closed