Exposing Expelled
Monday April 21, 2008
The new movie Expelled is, by all accounts, a creationist effort (with an ugly whiff of Adam and Eve's persecution in its title) claiming that heinous offenses are committed against those who question evolution. The National Center for Science Education has put up a trim, effective rebuttal to the movie's claims at expelledexposed.com.
I don't follow the creationist campaign closely because almost nothing in it is new, so I have little to add to my Against Creationism category. But one of the incidents in Expelled, the denial of tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez, was mentioned here last year, so if that caught your interest, Expelledexposed is where to catch up with developments.
Remember, evolution is a common-sense scientific theory as sound as the theory of gravity, and Biblical biology—which is all there is to "intelligent design"—is no more sound than Biblical physics.
Comments
There is no valid theory of Gravity. Newton had it right. This is our groups conclusion as to what Gravity is:
I am the co-author of these Gravity Laws:
ROG has Four Laws and no more ever than that. ROG = Rules of Gravity
First Law: Gravity is an ‘Is’.
Second Law: Gravity is continuous.
Third Law: Gravity is omnidirectional, omnipotent and omnipresent.
Fourth Law: Gravity is not gravitation.
So I leave a comment and it stands alone.
Why is that?
Let’s see - Dr. A.G. Fisher (evolutionist) said, “Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown” (2003) Evolutionists don’t know 2 of the biggest questions - and they don’t have a cogent mechanism for biological change (random mutations are hardly a ‘mechanism’ and natural selection is currently in question so much so that there’s a conference in Austria this July that will address it. 16 evolutionists will be there for 3 days)
“Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist [creation]; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs [macroevolution]” - Parasitology, 6th ed. Lea & Febiger, p. 516. As you can see, NS has nothing to do with macroevolution. I have Colbert’s 2001 text on the alleged Evolution of the Vertebrates (Wiley-Liss) in front of me - no evidence of macroevolution in these pages - none.
Ditto for Levinton’s 2001 text entitled ‘macroevolution’ - can you show me the page(s) where Levinton actually shows macroevolution to be true?
There are excellent fossil remains now of changes in fish that developed into reptiles able to survive on land. In addition there is increasing hard evidence that birds developed from dinosaurs, showing dinasaur-like animals with feathers. Nova had a superb program on this recently. My personal gene pool has a continuous lineage back to the earliest bacteria or pre-bacteria, the earliest gene material and then rudimentary chromosomal materials that evolved, so Windar 007 we are related! We live to pass on our genetic material, and are linked genetically to every life form on earth; the similarity in genes between us (life forms, not just humans) is quite remarkable. None of this “proves” that either there is a god or there isn’t. God is a faith, unprovable but immediate and required by most of the earth’s population. We don’t yet know what animals other than humans believe. Allow science to get on with its purpose to explain what and why we and the rest of the life forms are, and allow religion to do its job of guiding people’s faith.
adrian
Windar, thank you for furnishing ICR’s latest talking points. It is not helpful to misconstrue your sources with added words in brackets and then argue from your own concepts; that’s straw-man rhetoric.
As for the origin of life, no it isn’t fully explained–that’s why we do science. Nor is it the subject matter of evolutionary biology, so there’s another straw man.