Benjamin Franklin and My Response

A comment on my previous blog, re: Chuck Colson's article bringing the truth to the myths (some outright lies) about Ben Stein's upcoming movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

You Said (in italics):


Arianne,

Don't believe everything Chuck Colson says

The Claim
“Intelligent design was being suppressed in a systematic and ruthless fashion” (Ben Stein, Expelled).

The Facts
Intelligent design has not produced any research to suppress. When prominent ID proponent Michael Behe was asked about his research, and why “you don’t do those tests?” he responded, “I myself would prefer to spend time in what I would consider to be more fruitful endeavors.” If even proponents of ID do not think it is a fruitful enterprise, why should the scientific community take any interest in it?

I saw the trial transcript where he is quoted to say he would prefer to spend his time in what he would consider more fruitful endeavors. You have to take into consideration what he said prior to that answer that he would think that someone who thought an idea was incorrect (ie. ID) would be motivated to try and falsify the idea... and then the rest of his answer, that, "hypothesis of design is tested in a way that is different from a Darwinian hypotheses. The test has to be specific to the hypothesis itself, and as I have argued, an inductive hypothesis is argued or is supported by induction, by example after example of things we see that fit this induction."


You Said:

Intelligent design is scientifically unproductive, and this perhaps explains why scientists like Guillermo Gonzalez and Michael Behe publish far fewer papers after they become attracted to intelligent design. Ultimately, intelligent design’s lack of success in science departments is the fault of the flawed and unscientific nature of intelligent design itself, not the result of bias in the scientific community.

First here are a couple of quotes by Darwin, himself.

1. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." - Origin of Species

2. "The case at present (problems presented by the fossil record) must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." - The Origin of Species

And here are two other interesting quotes, the first by Dawkins and the second by Francis Crick:

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."

I don't think the issue here is that ID is "scientifically unproductive", it seems rather, that the work in trying to prove it false is actually what comes up short. Darwin discusses his thoughts on the function of the human eye and of the structure of the peacock's feathers in his correspondence with Asa Gray 1960. I wonder, what if Darwin were still around today? He was imaginative and brilliant in his theories, but what would his final say be after "new" evidence for design, i.e. irreducible complexity? And if most of what would prove evolution is simply time to find the evidence for it... more than 120 years after Darwin, shouldn't we have more fossil evidence for all that is required for speciation? Do we now have more or less support for his evolutionary theories?

I don't think that saying that Behe and Guillermo not producing any more papers after being attracted to design is evidence for ID's "lack of success". Is it possible that the scrutiny and negative criticism (and not to mention the seeming consequences) from evolutionists has slowed down their further research or writings? And which ID proponent ever said that design was "unscientific"? Irreducible complexity, unscientific? I think that is super contrary!


You said:

The issue is not the suppression of ID, but the lack of warrant for its scientific claims. And ultimately, ID has an uphill struggle to demonstrate that it is, indeed, science.

I think that even within scientific circles, if we are honest, it is evolution that is lacking in it's scientific claims, and also is the one which should be having the uphill struggle to demonstrate its truth as science. "Punctuated Equilibrium" was offered by evolutionist Gould as somewhat of a band-aid for the lack of evidence in the fossil record. And of course well known icons of evolution which are introduced to kids in public schools as more truth than theory (I was one of those kids...) are all innacurate or outdated. The theory of "directed panspermia" was offered by Crick because of the evidence exposing spontaneous generation as implausible.


You Said:

The fundamental problem with intelligent design as science is that intelligent design claims cannot be tested. Scientific testing requires that there be some set of phenomena which are incompatible with your idea. No observation could possibly be incompatible with a claim that an “intelligent agent” (whom everyone recognizes as God) acted to, say, introduce information into a system. Untestable claims are not scientific claims. Regardless of their attractiveness as religious ideas (although many people of faith strongly reject intelligent design) intelligent design has not passed muster as science.


Physicist David Bohm referred to science as "the pursuit of truth, no matter where it leads."

"Science is the search for truth - it is not a game in which one tries to beat his opponent, to do harm to others. We need to have the spirit of science in international affairs, to make the conduct of international affairs the effort to find the right solution, the just solution of international problems, not the effort by each nation to get the better of other nations, to do harm to them when it is possible." -Linus Pauling, winner of two Nobel prizes.

"Science and lies cannot co-exist. You don't have a scientific lie, and you cannot lie scientifically. Science is basically the search of truth." Bruce Alberts, current President of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences.

If we were true and honestly wanting the good of the study of science for all man kind, then we would not be closed-minded to the possibility that intelligent design is real. Why fight so hard to keep that possibility locked out, and if the truth, shunned as evil and as a lie (refer to earlier quotes by Crick and Dawkins.) If the idea is mainly that evolutionists desire a life apart from a creator, and thus a lifestyle apart from any absolute truths, then let them be truthful and honest in saying so, rather than misleading children and this world by a crumbling theory, which I would venture to say that Darwin would have probably admitted himself.

Expelled Myths - Debunked

(From BreakPoint E-news letter.)

Myths about Expelled
Don't Believe Everything You Hear

April 11, 2008

If you have heard of the new documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, opening April 18, chances are you have heard all kinds of distortions and myths about it. So let me set the record straight about some of the most common myths.

Myth #1: Darwinists interviewed for this film were tricked into participating.

Not so. Each scientist interviewed for Expelled, on both sides of the evolution debate, knew who would do the interview and what it was for. Each of them signed a release, allowing the producers to use the footage of their interviews.

Myth #2: The film is anti-science.

Wrong again. Many distinguished scientists were interviewed for this film and given the chance to express their views. Just like their Darwinist counterparts, the advocates of intelligent design and their supporters who are interviewed are there to talk about science, not to dismiss it. These are people like Cambridge physicist John Polkinghorne; Oxford mathematician and philosopher John Lennox; journalist Pamela Winnick, who has received hate mail for covering the issue; and biologist Caroline Crocker, who was fired from George Mason University for discussing intelligent design in the classroom. Some of them are religious believers; some are not. But what they share is a commitment to science and the unfettered pursuit of truth. Expelled is not anti-science; it is anti-censorship.

Myth #3: Ben Stein, the actor and writer who hosts the movie, has lost his mind.

Bringing up this very issue in a conference call, Stein quipped that he probably has, "but it was a long time ago . . . probably sometime around 1958." Well, I have known Stein well for years, and he is as bright as a button and anything but out of his mind. On a serious note, Stein and his film's producers explained that the mud that people are flinging at him is just one small example of what happens to people who question Darwinian orthodoxy. The original idea for Expelled, said co-producer and software engineer Walt Ruloff, came to him when he was working on a project with a group of biotechnologists and learned "that there was a whole series of questions that could not be asked."

The prevailing ideology among many scientists—it turned out—he concluded, was keep your mouth shut, take the research money, and publish only the data that fits with "the party line." The issue that concerns Ruloff and the others behind Expelled is whether the scientific establishment in this country is going to allow genuine "freedom of inquiry," or simply shut up—and slander—those who do not toe the line.

Given all this, Ben Stein states, "As long as the cause is right, I'm happy to be in an uphill struggle."

Myth #4: Popular author and atheist, Richard Dawkins tells Ben Stein in this film that there could have been a designer of life on earth, but it would have had to have been "a higher intelligence" that had itself evolved "to a very high level . . . and seeded some form of life on this planet."

Well, actually . . . that one is not a myth. He really did say it—striking admission, though it is.

So, I urge you to go see Expelled when it opens at a theater near you. Believe me, in this case the truth really is stranger—and more compelling—than any fiction the film's detractors could possibly dream up.

Because You Love the Guy...

CRAZY! Is there any better "front-man" than Ben Stein to lead a project like this? Check out the trailers and lets go see the movie!

That's all for now...

Okay Everyone, Here We Go...

Only some of my initial thoughts.

I have been stirred up and inspired lately, thinking about Truth. Anything relating to the thought of it. What is truth? Is it relative? Is it absolute? Stuff like that. Moreover, I suppose I'm somewhat tackling the age old philosophical questions, to which many have answered with a variety of opinions or truth claims, or hypothesis. This is interesting because I have never been considered (nor have I ever considered myself) "intellectual" and as a matter of fact have never desired the study of Philosophy itself. Too much brain power and thinking, maybe? I already have my own set of values and what I consider Truth, so I feel like I'm safe. Why would I want to go back, and really explore why I believe what I believe and question if I really believe what I believe is really real? Ugh, just that last thought/sentence alone gave me a headache! It's like opening a gigantic can of worms. I'm more of a "study of communications" (spec. media) type of person, so I feel like I have a good handle on various world views, though I wouldn't be ready to explain them in detail if I needed to.

I think what has lit what has really become a flame in my soul about the topic of Truth was the experience of a dear friend of mine whom after a time of study and discipleship of the Bible decided that they could mix the non-compromising scriptures with external, seemingly "intellectual" truth claims. This decision of theirs caused me to look at both scripture and the "external" as a whole to make sure that everything "lined up". But in doing so, I realized that there are inconsistencies and of course should cause one to question the external truth claims and could possibly cause anyone to question the entire Truth of the Bible. (This all fueled by more Bible reading, messages from culture and the crazy recent opportunities to read some Francis Schaeffer and being asked to take part in "The Truth Project", more on these later!) So if it is an absolute truth that we are looking for, then I would cut out the external claims, or lies, and really it would be ridiculous to assume that truth is relative, because most claims to truth (ie. different religions, etc.) are exclusive, in and of itself! (More on that later...) I'm not saying that those who don't agree with a Biblical world view or won't accept Biblical answers are purposefully offering lies, I just know that if Philosophers, or even just every day people are looking for the Truth, then we all need to be cautious of what is being fed to our minds, through media, politically, academically, etc. We should test it and question it! And on the same note, I believe that the option for people to investigate and believe in answers which are found in the Bible is in danger, and this is obvious when we look to science books and hear quotes from highly respected scientists/mathematicians/philosophers that the theory of Evolution or Darwinism might as well be considered law. (More on that later.)

I have come to realize that my desire is to continually discover and further my personal Biblical world view, to somehow help the church understand what a world view is and to challenge myself and believers on if they really believe that what they believe is really real, and to push and promote Truth from scripture, and to somehow help expose loop holes and lies of popular truth claims found in our culture.

Again, I'm not a scholar nor a writer, so I hope I can express all my thoughts and burnings by blog. If I don't at least try, like Jeremiah said, "... then in my heart it becomes like a burning fire, shut up in my bones, and I am weary of holding it in, And I cannot endure it."

Livie the Fishy

Happy Friday!


Livie the Fishy


I promise more insightful blogs, soon.

MILK ... Does a Body Good??

I love me some milk. Ever since childhood I have been known to drink two full glasses of milk, back to back. I need milk when I eat super sweet cake, with any cookie and definitely to dunk my Oreo's. For the past couple of years though, I've noticed that within two hours of drinking just half of a glass of milk, my stomach becomes upset. I didn't even connect the two until I remembered that my sister, Elise, is lactose intolerant. Even when I realized that I could possibly have milk issues, I would deny it and just keep on drinking because... I love me some milk!

I have yet to consult our physician, but today I think I will concede and say that I think I am allergic to milk. I just finished a bowl of cereal (drowned in vitamin D milk) and it is not just an upset stomach or gas... I have a big headache, and I rarely get headaches. I felt like I almost had to lay down it was so bad.

Here's what I found on food allergies from www.science.com:

Question No. 19379 : I have heard of people having headache after drinking milk. Is this one of the symptoms of being allergy to milk? If so, can I know what is the substance that causes this allergy? The word "allergy" is often used loosely: people are said "to be allergic" to anything which does not agree with them. The true meaning of allergy (also called an antigen) is a condition in which a person's immune system regards a substance as a dangerous "invader" and responds to it by producting antibodies, which in their turn rise to some unpleasant reactions. For example, when a person experiences a noticeable upset subsequent to eating a particular food, they are said "to be allergic" to it. The upset is due to the fact that the substances of the food are not fully broken down by the enzymes in the digestive tract and are ingested into the bloodstream in a form to a greater or lesser extent poisonous to the body. Allergic symptoms include headache, fatigue, tremor, collapse, and manifestations in the intestinal, respiratory, cutaneous, hematologic, neurologic, urinary, and cardiovascular systems. Chocolate confections are a common cause of migraine, and normal food components - milk, wheat, barley, rye, oats, corn, eggs, peanuts, soya, almonds, cashews, oranges, and salmon - are all headache triggers. Dairy milk and related products (cheese, yogurt, cottage and cream cheese, buttermilk, butter, sodium caseinate and lactate) are the cause of 60% of food allergies. Milk contains more than sixty different proteins, at least thirty-one of which may induce allergic reactions in humans. Numerous studies report that one of the common areas of the body to be affected by milk allergy is the brain and central nervous system. This explains why such symptoms as fatigue, depression, and headache occur.

Depression occurs?? Ugh. I guess it's back to soy milk for me.