27 April 2008 - 13:30Stein Says What Needed to be Said; Moore’s Just Fat
The difference between Micheal Moore and Ben Stein is plain and apparent: the purpose of Moore’s movies, every one of them, was to “close debate” as to what is truth: health care, gun laws, and that President Bush is evil. To do this, since all of these are clearly far from the truth, Moore had to riddle his movies with propaganda.
Stein, on the other hand, had the opposite purpose, to open debate. His movie was a push to get intellegent design back into the scientific realm and, and with reasons why to boot. His movie was just biting and ‘Hollywood’ enough to cut down the arrogant, egotistical atheist-evolutionist scientists who claim to know what cannot be known. This objective, in and of itself, makes the argument that Stein’s movie is ‘propaganda’ obsolete.
And why is it so hard to let both fields of study into the scientific realm? Evolutionary theory has NO - let me repeat - NO answers for how life came to be from simple chemicals. Intelligent Design has one, though. And Intelligent Design answers are supported by documents thousands and thousands of years old - some the earliest documents in existence. What is history but a collection of documents?
I don’t understand why it is so hard for atheists to accept that a higher power could have made the first complex chemicals, when they themselves admit they have no answers to the spark of life question. If evolution was such a ‘perfect’ and ‘complete’ theory, then why would this debate continue? Like the professor in the movie said, “those theories which never have perfect answers always see the most questions arise”. And, it’s true, evolutionary theory is full of holes. Perhaps, however, some cannot believe in an intangible answer to problems. Some cannot accept into reality what they cannot sense, and it will take that higher form of cognitive processing to open the debate back up to Intelligent Design.
01 May 2008 - 12:15
“Evolutionary theory has NO - let me repeat - NO answers for how life came to be from simple chemicals.”
I beg to differ. There’s a whole field dedicated to the study of the origin of life, and there are many different theories for how life on Earth came to be. Stein’s movie mentioned one which he laughed at: crystals. The hard part about the origin of life question is that it’s very difficult to come up with satisfactory experiments to prove theories. Life had billions of years to come about, on a planet whose atmospheric conditions we can only make educated guesses about. Scientists today have a few years in a lab to reproduce a billion years on a planet.
It’s certainly a difficult problem, and not one that scientists have a solid answer for, but there are plenty of hypotheses, waiting to be tested by the scientific process of experimentation.
How is intelligent design theory tested by experimentation?
“If evolution was such a ‘perfect’ and ‘complete’ theory, then why would this debate continue?”
Evolution is, primarily, the study of biogenesis, or the production of living organisms from living organisms. The fact that the origin of life question has not yet been satisfactorily answered does not discredit the entire theory of evolution.