The Theory is Broken

Continuing with the discussion for intelligent design from the previous post, here is a documentary I watched and highly recommend.  "Unlocking the Mystery of Life"  It takes you through it step by step very thoughtfully. I really enjoyed it. Leave me a comment and let me know what you think.

In the movie caption area/description there is a linked list of all of the sections of the documentary; they're about 9-10 minutes apiece. (These were posted back when YouTube had a 10 minute limit on films, which they've done away with a few years ago.) The third and forth 'movies' are the most convincing sections of the intelligent design argument in my opinion. It's a building argument, though, so make sure you watch the whole show and not just a few parts. The scope of the argument will leave you awestruck and then dumbfounded as to why exactly we're still arguing about this with all our technological prowess today. 

The scientists interviewed acknowledge there are religious implications for intelligent design but they don't dwell on it or try to beat you over the head with it. They're concerned with the study of molecular biology and the origin of the simplest forms of it. 

The source code for DNA is a given difficulty for those Darwinians who want to state a simple view that it all just arranged itself through chance or some built in(who built it??) magnetism. But 'irreducible reductionism' is really the very heart of the issue. Darwinians want to say that things are 'borrowed' from other sections or previously existing varieties of the type of machine present today in the cell. But where did those previous machinations come from? Who told them to change? If something happens slowly then how does it survive in the meantime with a changed environment which is demanding those changes for survival now? You can only break components of a machine's parts down so far before the argument is moot. You can't build something out of nothing! And I think that last part is what makes Darwinian's crazed. They want to say you can put a bowl full of mud with all the basic amino acids and proteins, add ... something(?!)... and voila! There will be life. It doesn't work, it hasn't worked, and it'll never work. People have tried zapping mud with electricity quite a few times. 

This is the most simple break down of the argument in it's all it's complexity:

"Without DNA there is no self replication. But without self replication there is no natural selection. So you can't use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing you're trying to explain." ~Stephen C. Meyer

This is why David Hawkins will never move beyond anything but screeching at the masses about how 'illogical' the God theory is: The burden of the theory of origin lies with the previously existing machine, not the one we have today. We don't know where the previous one came from but surely that one had a progenitor with the same parts somewhere in it's makeup. We think. We're pretty sure. We're not even sure where 95% of those other parts came from but.. whatever. Oh and the nucleus? The first cells probably didn't have them or need them. (I think my brain just did a 180 and came to a screeching halt with that asshat argument. With no instructions then who or what tells the cell to make changes?!)

Yeah, it's a pretty narrow lensed scope Darwinians are looking through. If it doesn't fit, toss it! But that's how they say natural selection occurred. If that's the case then where did all those billions upon billions of potential choices come from? Something inside the cell decided these things. What is it?  

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have formed by numerous successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."      ~Charles Darwin

Holy cow. Really? Isn't that rather ironic in the context of the argument being given about something as simple as the bacterial flagellum(tail/propeller) which is necessary for all life on our planet?

I ask the following question for all those in education or who have children being educated: why are we still teaching this?
 

Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins

This evening I watched Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed documentary. It's a look at how evolutionists(Darwinists) have placed a stranglehold on academic discussion on intelligent design. Their reasoning? If you allow intelligent design discussion then we'll end up back in the Dark Ages where science is lost to religion.

Here's the full length movie on YouTube.


The academics Ben Stein speaks with on Darwinism make a valid point while getting to the meat of the argument itself: Darwin never explained the ORIGIN of man at all, just what he thought happened after the atoms were already arranged! And that is the place there Darwinists and Creationists painfully collide. Midway between them, leaning a little more right than left, you have intelligent design. "Something awfully smart created those first atoms! So intelligent that we're unraveling layers upon layers of mysteries within the atom itself every year!" 

The sentiment expressed continually throughout the film is that the continued study of Darwinism for scientists eventually leads to atheism. I want to say that I can see this would be true for at least those academics and scientists who don't have a backbone and/or only want to climb the academic ladder to stardom and money. Or at least tenure and a somewhat comfortable retirement plan. However, I have also personally known many teachers, scientists, and those who began as scientists but left the field who have said that the further they looked at science overall then the more religious they became-- not the reverse. But if they had only the confines of Darwinism to use as a template for all their accepted work then yes, they'd have suffered a crisis of faith or just seen their curiosity wither and die. I think perhaps this may be the intent of the establishment.  Those teachers I knew who became more spiritual at the end did leave the field for other private studies. They knew their career was at stake because they could not in good conscience teach something they knew was false.

One of the highlights of the film came at 1:27(that's one hour and twenty-seven minutes) Richard Dawkins explains why he believes in intelligent design! It's a riot because afterwards Ben Stein asks him to clearly state that he does not believe in any god or God of any religion whatsoever. However Richard Dawkins doesn't even hear what he'd previously admitted. He wasn't tricked into anything. There was no slick sophistry involved. Here's part of the conversation. To see the full thing you'd have to watch the movie : 




Richard: "So it couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously." 

Whoooahhh! Wait. Isn't that what the anti-creationists aka. DARWINISTS are trying to shove down everyone's throats including the Big Bang Theory?! That somehow this... thing... just happened and there was nothing intelligent about it?!  But a so-called hard core atheist thinks that someone super smart(elsewhere in the universe, of course) designed us(is he hearing himself?!), planted our genome here on this planet and then ...... sped off back to whatever lovely world they came from. But of course that race of super smart beings or being evolved by some Darwinian process themselves, because you know Darwinism has to play into our genesis at some point right?

Chicken and egg, Richard. I'm calling bullshit on that, my friend. Who made that first race of beings who supposedly made us? ... if they did indeed evolve Darwinian style and were not spontaneously sprouted from some God's head fully formed.

The logistics of this argument make my head spin! It seems quite obvious to me at this point that the most obvious questions are not being asked in the classroom and unfortunately for the child who does want to ask .... I think their teacher may be inclined to not engage the child in conversation at all because they fear for their job.

An idea I've been pondering and refining for some time now: Man created religion as a way to explain the mysteries of God Science. Within gnosis we're able to see the forest(we live in it) AND the trees(we dream them) because we soar above it through his eyes to see what it is he wants to share. That intrinsic and basic connection we share with him is what gives us our sense of wonder, our sense of awe about the universe and even the trees and butterflies. Being the body of the All itself, how can we not be amazed?