Hey Admin , Extremely nice blog , if you need backlinks to your website I provide upto 10,000 high quality SEO backlinks for only $5. Check it out here :http://bit.ly/msweL2...

More later.

Regards…

As for types of life, I know there may be many things that classify as life. Hawking touched on that, too. But the debate we were having is about human life and evolution, specifically. (Not being arguementive, it’s too late for that, I’m sleepy.)

I thought you might like Vox Day. He’s a good solid libertarian, to the right of a typical conservative. He was on every Monday at World Net Daily, but yesterday Roger Hedgecock was in his place. On matters economic and social the left can’t quite touch the guy. He’s one of the reasons I learned about Dawkins.

Having read your earlier responses, the thing I’d like to reiterate about Dawkins is that he does seem to be the kind of guy that would state “if it didn’t happen the way I suppose then it must have been God, and I don’t believe that so it must have happened the way I say.”

My whole position has not been one of supporting creation but one of refuting the specifics of evolution. Having read the body of thought I do not see conclusive scientific testing that supports the theory. There is a lot of evidence, yes, but it is not in my view conclusive. I’m not arguing that it must have been God, just that the current theory does not appear sufficient.

I’ll leave you with a challenge, mainly because I haven’t been able to find it myself, and you seem very good at research. — Several weeks ago I read a story online of 15 scientist and ‘natural philosophers,’ whatever that is, discussing the mechanism of Natural Selection. They stated they felt the current theories were not sufficient, so they were trying to piece together something new. The problem? — I can’t find the darn story again to save my life! If you can dig it up, I’d greatly appreciate it. They say they will publish the findings next year, and I am interested in what they say.

See ya….

“The anthropic principle has been an embarrassing problem for secular scientists in recent decades due to the way in which the probability of the universe and Earth just happening to be perfectly suitable for human life is very, very low.”

…….thank goodness it’s not zero.

And I’ve just now noticed that he states ‘human life’.
That brings up the question: What is the probability of ANY other life-form in the universe?

That famous wheelchair-guy weighs-in:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html

This is an interesting read:
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Extraterrestrial%20life.htm

re: Dawkins
I’m aware of him and think he’s done a good job of rebutting the hardcore creationists. However, I am not in lock-step with his beliefs and attitudes.

Any thoughts on this?

Anyone who believes that science provides all answers to all questions is a fool.
What time is it?
What’s the name of that song?
What’s your name?
What did I eat for breakfast?
Simple examples, but science is not required for anyone to answer those questions.

“We didn’t ask to be born with the need to need those things. We just do need them. …and if we need them, then there is something “out-there” that must meet that need, else we wouldn’t need it.”

No offense, but I’m not quite sure what point you’re trying to make here. What ‘things are you referring to?
It’s very possible to want something that just does not exist.
And you’re implying (I think) that the only stuff that exists is stuff we want/need.

“We wouldn’t be thirsty if there was no water.”
No, we’d be dead. Humans require water. And how would you explain all of the things that mankind has created? You say that we’re thirsty because there is water. In other words: We want ‘X’ because ‘X’ exists. Yet we enjoy many things today that have been created by man. So, if they weren’t always available……then why are they here now? Why did we create them? (Because we wanted them!) So we could also say ‘X’ doesn’t exist, but I want ‘X’. I’m sure early man asked the same “Why am I here?” questions that most of us still ask. He looked at the sky, saw the sun, and decided that it must be the source of life and decided to worship it. That answer – that he chose to believe as correct – worked for him. As time went on and man progressed he discovered that the big fireball in the sky is not ‘god’. It’s basically a big orb of nuclear activity. And there are billions of ‘em!

“Neither is it clear that the universe formed in millions or billions of years as a result of random chemical processes, and any attempt to teach that as absolute truth to children is equally wrong to your concern about creationism being taught.”

The random chemical process/origin of life, something that science favors, is thought of as a punchline by creationists. Yet the thought of an unseen entity creating everything is perfectly acceptable. Again, as a religion I have no issue. But as a science it’s downright ridiculous.

“It is wrong to teach children that only science can provide all the answers. “
If someone is teaching your children that science provides ALL the answers, then you should immediately seek a different teacher.

“It is impossible to live, must less teach, in an amoral, logic-only, non-religious, science-be-all, context.”
Agreed! But who’s advocating that lifestyle? Scientists? Which ones?

Also, I’m bothered by equating a ‘non-religious’ lifestyle with lawlessness and a disregard for decency. The implication being that religion is the ONLY reason for the goodness of mankind. Let’s give mankind more credit.

“As I said earlier, we are hard-wired to “believe”. “
No disrespect here, but that is entirely your opinion. I’m more inclined to think we are hard-wired to ask questions and get the correct (provable) answers.

“Even the self-proclaimed atheist is only professing his un-belief. That is, he (she) is actively suppressing belief…”
Perhaps ‘suspension’ of belief is what you’re implying.
Also, I want to be clear that atheists and scientists are not the same thing.

“So, teaching children that the Earth was created over eons and billions of years, that they are just animated pond-scum, ..”
Again, no disrespect, but referring to all life as animated ‘pond scum’ is just ridiculous.
Keep in mind that the Bible does state that man was made from dust, and that woman was made from the rib of an entity created from dust….

“… that there is no right or wrong…”
Who is stating that there is no right or wrong? Where are you getting your info from? Please show me the websites, or scientists, who are spouting that garbage.
Right and wrong exists, regardless of whether there is/isn’t a ‘god’.

“… that there is only nothingness after death, is equally wrong, in my opinion, as your opinion that teaching that there may be something that transcends our “meaningless” existence.
Why would you refer to your existence – or the existence of mankind – as ‘meaningless’?
Look back on all of the wonderful advances that mankind has made….the technology, the art, the different cultures, the sciences.
Would they be of less value because a higher power might not exist?

“ In other words, you are guilty of the “sins” of which you accuse the “Creationists”.”
Creationists are implying that there is ‘something’ after death, and those who disagree are asking for proof. And I don’t know that I (personally) have accused anyone – Creationist or otherwise of having ‘sinned’. No offense taken.

“I ask you, what good is it to teach our children that 2+2=4 if there is no moral context or direction?”
Why would you, or anyone, want to, or need to, involve morals with mathematics???

“We teach our kids all of these facts…..so they can have a better life… but is that really better?”
That depends on a whole host of variables that an individual would encounter during their journey through life. Some people have good lives, some people have great lives, some people have lousy lives.
Wealthy, educated people drank the kool-aid at Jonestown.
People born into extreme poverty have achieved fame, fortune, and happiness.

“That’s what is happening in our culture and in our schools and with our children and with ourselves. We’ve lost our way. What good is science alone if it doesn’t mean anything to anyone?”
Not sure what you mean by that last sentence, and who’s implying that we need ‘science alone’..?

“We’re dying as a nation because we don’t have a direction. We can debate this stuff all day, but the hordes are massing and life is running short. Let’s both of us get on to the real meaning of life and teach our children that there is a good that transcends this world……that there is a meaning that makes our struggle worthwhile… “

OK. But there is a ‘meaning’ regardless of whether there is a ‘god’. I’m getting the impression (and correct me if I’m mistaken) that you feel that, without ‘god’, life is meaningless. That’s sad.

“..that there is a lost world that we can – humbly and hopefully – make a difference (and that we can be helped by others, too). “
This nation is dying because we lack leadership with ‘balls’. A country can only be as great and respected as its leadership, and by example. If a leader refuses to stand before the world and defend himself – and his country – by exposing the lies put forth by those who want to see this country die, then our collective morale suffers. (I voted for ‘W’ twice, but I won’t miss him when he leaves.)

“I don’t want to kick science out of the classroom. I don’t want to have every answer on the test to be “because Jesus said so”. I want our children to have their minds developed beyond either of our imaginations. I want them to thirst for knowledge, truth, and love…”
Sounds very good to me. But many of our children will grow up to become scientists, doctors, physicists, engineers, etc., and will be truly disappointed that the adults they trusted lied to them because of a belief.

My point is: Which ‘intelligent designer’ gets the credit? The god of Abraham? Allah? Buddha? Which one? Does it change as we travel from country-to-country? This ‘creationism vs. evolution’ argument opens a really huge can of worms with clearly no winner.

“I want them to thirst for knowledge, truth…”
Speaking of truth, let’s return to the museum scenario/video for a moment: What’s going to happen to those same children when they’re given an assignment regarding earth science? They were taught the 6,000 year story, but science has proven – PROVEN – a multi-billion year history. Those children will fail. A belief/religion has interfered with this particular aspect of their education, and they will suffer for it.

Again, good rebuttal!
All the best!

It is wrong to teach children that only science can provide all the answers. It is impossible to live, must less teach, in an amoral, logic-only, non-religious, science-be-all, context. As I said earlier, we are hard-wired to “believe”.
Even the self-proclaimed atheist is only professing his un-belief. That is, he (she) is actively suppressing belief. ..like the jilted lover who says to the rejector “I didn’t think about you today. In fact, I spent all day **not** thinking about you” It’s not a question of whether or what is our belief (i.e. faith)… it’s what our faith will be. So, teaching children that the Earth was created over eons and billions of years, that they are just animated pond-scum, that there is no right or wrong, that there is only nothingness after death, is equally wrong, in my opinion, as your opinion that teaching that there may be something that transcends our “meaningless” existence. In other words, you are guilty of the “sins” of which you accuse the “Creationists”.

I ask you, what good is it to teach our children that 2+2=4 if there is no moral context or direction? We teach our kids all of these facts with the goal of them getting a better education, so they can get a better job, so they can buy better things, so they can have a better life… but is that really better? That’s what is happening in our culture and in our schools and with our children and with ourselves. We’ve lost our way. What good is science alone if it doesn’t mean anything to anyone? We’re dying as a nation because we don’t have a direction. We can debate this stuff all day, but the hordes are massing and life is running short. Let’s both of us get on to the real meaning of life and teach our children that there is a good that transcends this world… that there is a meaning that makes our struggle worthwhile… that there is a lost world that we can – humbly and hopefully – make a difference (and that we can be helped by others, too).

I don’t want to kick science out of the classroom. I don’t want to have every answer on the test to be “because Jesus said so”. I want our children to have their minds developed beyond either of our imaginations. I want them to thirst for knowledge, truth, and love…

You can believe in God (or a ‘god’) AND be a scientist.
NO ONE is saying “You must believe in one or the other!”
(And if they are, they’re idiots.)

“How can our children make informed decisions….”

If they’re being lied to, and then they use that false information to make a decision, then their decision won’t really be ‘informed’.
And I’m referring to the museum example, and telling children that the fossils shown are merely ‘art’, and stating that the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old.
Those are lies.
Those children are being lied to.

“Learning about alternative beliefs…”

Stop right there.
Science is NOT a belief.
We’re talking about two completely different subjects: science, and belief (religion).
Alternate beliefs would be someone coming to a catholic school and insisting that the Koran be taught….or that Scientology be taught.
Those are beliefs.
They are not science.

re: The museum curator….
He has no choice….he cannot prevent people from entering the museum, provided they’ve paid an entrance fee – if applicable.
And I think if the museum were told to hire those 2 clowns as tour guides, the curator would – hopefully – laugh and show them to the nearest exit.
For anyone to merely brush aside scientifically proven evidence that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago is just downright stupid.
That isn’t meant as a cheap shot, either. Those 2 guys are just idiots.
The universe is much older than 6,000 years……it’s been proven……there is no argument.

re: T-Rex as vegetarian

It was probably a quote from that yo-yo, Ken Ham.
That man was truly a moron, first class.

http://thedesigninterference.blogspot.com/2007/04/t-rex-was-vegetarian-i-kid-you-not.html

re: Richard Dawkins ‘not welcoming an opposing point of view’.

Dawkins approaches the subject rationally, and using proven scientific arguments to make his case. If an opposing point of view boils down to ‘a miracle occurred’, or ‘a higher power designed ‘X’, then I would understand his reluctance to ‘debate’ that person.
Dawkins argues based on proof, and the creationist argues based on ‘faith’.

re: Ben Stein
The man wears glasses, so he probably visits an eye doctor every year.
Ben does not entrust his vision to his rabbi, he entrusts it to his doctor.

You want to baptize your child.
You can choose either a nuclear physicist or your parish priest.

I hope you know I don’t mean to provoke an arguement. Like you said to me once on a thread a while back — like two guys sitting there having a beer and talking about it.

I just thought it was a little odd, that’s all, that on a thread about the American Thinker, which I went to and liked, you seemed to pick out that one article. I really hope it didn’t spoil it for you, because generally you and I have the same politics and common sense.

As for commenting on the movie, I haven’t seen it yet, and do not want to speak out of my posterior. (I’m not a liberal.) It seems you’ve seen the movie, so I would be at a disadvantage.

I did watch the clip about the museum. There is one thing, maybe two I found interesting.

1. The curator of the museum welcomed the creationists to give all the tours they wanted, as he didn’t see any problem letting them have their say. When I read interviews from people like Richard Dawkins, however, I am left thinking that prominent evolutionists do not welcome opposing points of view.

2. According to a Science channel special some time ago, T-Rex had the teeth of a vegetarian. That would have coincided with the view of the creationists in the video that T-Rex would have eaten veggies in the Garden.

I’m just sayin, since you asked. I don’t really want to hash this out here until Michelle opens a proper thread; that way we can see a lot more commenters.

……..and humans-did-not-evolve-from-apes…..

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html

SHoward:
No. I’m not gunning for anything.
‘Expelled’ has already been ‘attacked’ (Actually, ‘debunked’ is a better word.) rather well on other websites. I’d checked into MM’s website the same as I do every day and read her post. When I went to the AT website I thought it looked familiar. I poked around and realized that this was the website with the favorable review of ‘Expelled’. (My first and only encounter with American Thinker was of their ‘Expelled’ review). Based upon the review I felt that it might not be a site for me. I didn’t trash the site, nor did I trash the reviewer. I merely took a pass.

I also in no way meant to hijack this thread. My apologies to MM, whom I admire greatly and whom I always enjoy seeing on TV.

How do you feel about American Thinker? Or did the fact that they published a favorable piece about Ben Stein’s production ruin it for you?