A War on Science
When Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution nearly 150 years ago, he shattered the dominant belief of his day – that humans were the product of divine creation. Through his observations of nature, Darwin proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection. This caused uproar. After all, if the story of creation could be doubted, so too could the existence of the creator. Ever since its proposal, this cornerstone of biology has sustained wave after wave of attack. Now some scientists fear it is facing the most formidable challenge yet: a controversial new theory called intelligent design.
In the late 1980s Phillip Johnson, a renowned lawyer and born-again Christian, began to develop a strategy to challenge Darwin. To Johnson, the evidence for natural selection was poor. He also believed that by explaining the world only through material processes was inherently atheistic. If there was a god, science would never be able to discover it.
Johnson recruited other Darwin doubters, including biochemist Professor Michael Behe, mathematician Dr William Dembski, and philosopher of science Dr Stephen Meyer. These scientists developed the theory of intelligent design (ID) which claims that certain features of the natural world are best explained as the result of an intelligent being. To him, the presence of miniature machines and digital information found in living cells are evidence of a supernatural creator. Throughout the 90s, the ID movement took to disseminating articles, books and DVDs and organising conferences all over the world.
To its supporters, intelligent design heralds a revolution in science and the movement is fast gaining political clout. Not only does it have the support of the President of the United States, it is on the verge of being introduced to science classes across the nation. However, its many critics, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, fear that it cloaks a religious motive – to replace science with god.
Watch the full documentary now
November 8th, 2009 at 14:29
Why?…if the story of creation could be doubted, so too could the existence of the creator? What a bunch of ****! One does not imply the other. Narrow minded. These arguments are designed to breed doubt. In truth, the bible is not to be taken literally, especially Genesis, anyone who thinks so is not very astute. But this is all part of the big lie that keeps people divided which is what the elitists want. Abortion,Gays, and Creation – all arguments to weaken the middle class…wake up.
November 9th, 2009 at 21:14
There is more to the world around us than just what we can see, I am certain of that. And I don’t mean only the microscopic organisms…
However, I can’t make myself believe in god the way it is presented by the major religions today (with, possibly, the exception of Buddhism, whether one sees it as a religion or not). If the Bible, for example, is to be taken literally, than it means nothing, it’s just a bunch of crap that anyone with a questioning and open mind wouldn’t believe; if it is not to be taken literally, than I don’t know what it means and what it talks about. Surely nothing that I can understand. (Personally, I believe the god of Moses was of alien origin, that’s the only way I can make sense of it, but it still doesn’t explain how did this alien come to exist.)
Having said the above, the evolution theory has its own gaps, and one shouldn’t take it as a bible either. To me, it is simply a theory that, for the time being, and at current level of our knowledge and understanding, offers the most rational answers to most questions – but it shouldn’t be forgotten that it doesn’t offer all the answers…
There is more out there than the science today, void of any spirituality, and even belligerent towards it, can explain. Perhaps a tiny bit of it could help…
November 21st, 2009 at 13:25
WTC7: My standard for interpreting the Bible is to take it litterally unless it is impossible to do so, and we are sure it is figurative in nature. The art of the matter comes into being by knowing what is literal and what is figurative which is not always easy. Trust but verify is a good policy to follow for any faith that you might have.
If God is real (and I believe He is), then how would He get his message out? What would be the best way? The Bible tells what is most important to have faith, but does not bog down on all the particulars we now think “vital” such as the creation account. It would be nice for our generation to have a nice 400 page book of detailed creation expiditions, but we are one of the first generations in which such WOULD be useful. Perhaps that is why Jesus (whom I believe to be God also), said, you need to come with the faith of “little children” and just trust me. Trust first; understand later. And if you never fully understand, then just keep believing in the One that does.
November 21st, 2009 at 14:27
Charles, is it really a good idea to trust first and understand later? Certainly we can’t trust just anyone who demands our faith. If that were the case, we’d have to follow every religion, and I don’t think I can take on more than two or three right now because I know I’ll just screw that up.
December 9th, 2009 at 08:00
The dishonesty of the godly never ceases to amaze me. I suppose anything is justified when you are certain that you are serving an angry and jealous god.
Why are the godly so afraid of evolution? Religion is about control and authority, it has nothing to do with truth or morality. An honest review of the history of religion should be enough to convince you of this. Somewhere along the line, someone in the religious community decided that the Bible was the literal word of their god and authority usually demands complete obedience; Galileo wasn’t persecuted and shown the instruments of torture because he was an evil man, he was persecuted simply because he implied that the church was wrong, he questioned their authority and was threatened with torture and death for his impetuousness.
Claiming that some parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally and other parts are meant as simple metaphors is an absurd cop out and merely allows the believer to move the goal posts when truth (again) starts casting doubt on their faith. This “god of the gaps” approach leaves the religious with an ever diminishing deity and that must be very uncomfortable for them; a thousand years ago, gods were responsible for everything but now they are left with less and less to do as humanity begins to understand how the universe works.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:42
Tim: I meant to trust the Christian God first and understand His reasons for doing things later. I wouldn’t advocate trusting everything or every religious philosophy first before testing its merits, as that would be impossible and not prudent.
Eric Howe: Well said. You have some really excellent thoughts and valid criticisms of religious people. However, I don’t know what you think is the “dishonesty” of the “godly”. Can you give it to me in a nutshell? I don’t want to guess at your meaning there.
In response, the Bible is indeed composed of things to be taken litterally and other things to be understood metaphorically. When Jesus said “I am the Good Shepherd” He was talking about people, not sheep, as not a single sheep is mentioned in the Bible being tended by Jesus anywhere. There’s nothing wrong with that. Every religion does that and I dare say all atheists do too. Metaphore is widely used in everyday language, why not in Scripture also? That is a blanket criticism that is unfounded.
What do you mean by a “god of the gaps”? What “truth” are you talking about that is diminishing God? Evolution? That’s a very shakey “truth” to stand on indeed, and one that has not diminished God in the smallest amount.
I would agree with you, however, that religion is about “conrol and authority” but true Christianity is about life itself; it’s about a relationship with God who is indeed the creator who loves us and wants us to be part of who He is as God.
Eric, I would like to appologize to you on behalf of the “Christian” community, as you’ve obviously been hurt by someone who called themselves a “Christian.” I’m sorry. Some of us are overly zealous, and others are just plain evil-hearted and a rotten-to-the-bone hypocrite which is exactly what Jesus hated most too. I just read today in my Bible that Jesus had his harshest rebukes for the “religious” of His day; against the Pharisees, the Sadusees and the Scribes.
I also had a brand new insight into an old parable I just re-read today. Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a “dragnet” that is cast into the sea and brings up all kinds—some good and some bad; the good was kept and the bad was cast into eternal damnation. Wow! I had a brand new insight today and it was the fact that religion and even Christianity (the Kingdom of God) has both good and evil inside it together and always will until the end of time. It’s no surprise to God. It will only be in the end that the good will be blessed of God and the evil exposed by God and fully punished. It’s just a fact of life; where there is money and power, there is evil, but not everyone is evil. A few of us are the “real deal” and for the rest, I do sincerely apologize. Perhaps that is also why Jesus said that “braod is the way that leads to death, and many will follow that way, but narrow is the way that leads to life, and only a few will find it.”
Keep asking questions, Eric, until you get an answer you know comes from God Himself and then believe rather than doubt. Let me know if I can answer any more of your questions as briefly as I can.
December 9th, 2009 at 17:03
I agree with, Eric Howe:
Circular Logic, and more circular logic.
It is so redundant! Any thing you ask of religious people, they refer to the Bible. With due respect, but this is all they have. Al least if there was something “new” they could offer, people might sit up and take notice!
Instead, parables from thousands of years ago. That they can not change to keep up with the times. All they can due is to interpret them in different ways, to mean different things. And add more fancyfull tales.
December 10th, 2009 at 02:39
Eric Howe: Religious people oppose evolution because without a god they have to admit their hopes and dreams and heaven and hell are all mythology.
Evolutionists passionately oppose religion becuase if if religion is correct and evolution not correct, they there is a god and therefore accountability to that god for our actions. There is no mystery here to either groups actions.
Achems Razor: Charles B. is a Christian. Chrisitans use the Bible for their life questions. He is consistent, not circular in his logic. Buddhist, Hindu, Muslims, and even atheists us thier own theories and concepts to address life problems. Charles B. was trying to answer Eric Howe’s quesiton from his base of understanding.
Should we say your logic is “circular” when you use quatum theory consistently, as you have done several times to address issues and questions? No. You are consistent also.
KK
December 10th, 2009 at 03:08
Kelly K:
Thank you for pointing that out to me. Yes you are right, I do use Science as my logic. So then I am consistent in my viewpoints also.
But you did scare me, I thought you were going to say I used circular logic until I read further.
What I meant by circular logic, for religion, there is no new avenues for them to discuss, they have no recourse except what is written in the Bible which is static, unchanging. so they go around and around. They cannot offer anything new that people have not heard before.
Regards.
December 10th, 2009 at 03:33
Achems Razor: Ok. Understood. You always seem to be consistently logical but not “unemotional” which mirrors how I like to view myself.
Charles B. and others like him are trying to “play ball” outside of their main experience in life. You can’t blame them for using the old “stand by” as they don’t feel it is old or outdated, but cherrished. Something new is not “new,” but a threat.
Like anyone, take the truth where you find it, but not the rest if it doesn’t help you. I heard a philosopher say, “In some way, every man is my teacher”. He’s trying very hard to give life questions outside the “box” of his religion I think while still being consistent in his own right. He is persistent, isn’t he?
KK
December 10th, 2009 at 03:44
Kelly K:
Yes Charles B. is persistent, which is good. All us Atheist’s and other Religions got to him once. But I told him not to throw in the towel.
because he, one man alone was holding his own, against all of us. So yes, I do have respect for Charles.
December 10th, 2009 at 05:49
Thanks Kelly K. and Mr. Razor. Sorta.
I do get passionate, don’t I?
I don’t know what “new thing” would qualify for an effective argument, to be honest. I really do believe that there is a God and He inspired the Bible and therefore it litterally has an anwer for everything if you look for it.
At least the Bible or Torah or the Quran can be referred to by all as a “standard”. Something “new” like Mr. Razor wants just doesn’t seem possible as an “athoritative” text unless he’s thinking of a new scientific discovery, say a big rock uncovered in New Jersey that says, “God was here and you were not! Ha! Ha! P.S. I, God, wrote this 4.5359305020 billion years in advance before the day it will be discovered New what you will call “New Jersey” on October 8th 2011! Do you like my big rock that I just made? Check for Plotonium halos, please!”
I’m totally joking, by the way, but wouldn’t that be a nice big rock to find? I could see the New York Times headlines now: “God’s Graffitti Found in NJ Farmer’s Field! Hoax Suspected.”
December 24th, 2009 at 00:54
Please stop believing in Me! That was useful when you were all savages – you don’t need it anymore! You can now start thinking by yourselves!
December 24th, 2009 at 01:12
@God, you forgot to include this clarification of your rules:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28151
December 26th, 2009 at 22:13
Thanks God, but now we know all know you are real! So what is the right religion? Is it like you said on South Park – The Mormons?
December 28th, 2009 at 11:43
The scientist was right in the documentary, science is objective and religion is subjective. Therefore, in the public spheres we will go with what we know to be true and observable; for example that the earth is very old as exemplified by the grand canyon, and in the private sphere you can guide your life by your own personal subjective beliefs, aka your chosen religion or unchosen religion. Everyone, can admit that some things are left to be explained, for example on the Global Calgary News recently they showed footage of a tranparent entity crossing a room that was captured by the security cameras. Something that is not supposed to happen by Christian views or by the views of atheists. The search for truth is slowed down by people holding on to the status quo like a child holds on to their blanky when mom figures it is time for them to give it up and grow up. Whether there is a creator or not people can still choose to be kind, good, and moral. And by the way, the bible has no answers for the presence of Dinosaurs on the earth but I think we have proven without a shadow of a doubt that they existed and anthropologists have still to find the missing link if there is one.
January 11th, 2010 at 15:03
Just an observation… with these types of documentaries, it’s always hard to find an actual review of the documentary and not just personal opinions on the matter or heated debate. I love the site though, I haven’t watched one I didn’t enjoy yet.
January 15th, 2010 at 05:21
Most people look at what they want to see, subconsciously they are always thinking of what they want to see. There is much that happens in our environment which we fail to notice, although minute, but significant. Now in order to be better en lighted we need good observational skills which will help us look at thinks that we fail to see. Science provides us with such a skill, not the bible,qoran, torah, geeta….etc. So please get rid of all these books and lets embark on a journey of enlightenment.
January 30th, 2010 at 20:04
I’ve read all the posts above, and I would have something to say…
First, I don’t think that religion is about control of the masses and manipulation. The vast majority of religious people have no connection with authority, and they have no reason to impose religion based on that. Also, a great deal of clergymen really believe what they teach. It’s not that they want to manipulate the public. No one is as indoctrinated as the one who indoctrinates…
Then, the Bible DID suffer changes along the history, contrary to what the Church claims. Even the fact that languages to which is translated are so different yelds many different interpretations. I often find myself laughing at the minister when he preaches intimate meanings of what Jesus said here and there, because I know those meanings are absolutely nonsense in English for example.
To what Charles B said, “god of the gaps” means that less and less things are explained by the existence of God. Thousands of years ago the occurence of pregnacies were explained as miracles, the lightnings, the rain, the floods, plants growing, the Sun setting and then rising again in the morning, everything was explained by “the works of God”. Nowadays we understand many of these things as natural fenomena.
As for the metaphores in the Bible, who decides what is metaphore and what is literally true? Along the history, less and less things were held as biblical FACTS. One can only wonder, is ANY of the things described in the Bible true? A thing to remember, the Bible was written in the Bronze Age. By people with limited knowledge. An all knowing God would have given a more interesting and more understandable message, that could reach ALL the humans. And by the way, God showing in the clouds, waving to people and shouting here and there would make, I think, a more compelling evidence that he exists.