Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Ben Stein has produced a film that needs to be seen.



In theatres nationwide April 18, 2008.

For more information please visit: getexpelled.com

"Are Humans Meant to be Monogamous?"

Are they deliberately publishing this dreck?

From LiveScience:

Social monogamy is a term referring to creatures that pair up to mate and raise offspring but still have flings. Sexually monogamous pairs mate with only with one partner. So a cheating husband who detours for a romantic romp yet returns home in time to tuck in the kids at night would be considered socially monogamous.

Beyond that, scientists' definitions for monogamy vary.

Evolutionary psychologists have suggested that men are more likely to have extramarital sex, partially due to the male urge to "spread genes" by broadcasting sperm. Both males and females, these scientists say, try to up their evolutionary progress by seeking out high-quality mates, albeit in different ways.

Attempts to Justify Adultery

An article that tries to explain what disgraced Governor Spitzer did was just a throwback to prehistoric times.

Scientists says it's more likely to be the latter. They attribute this kind of behavior to natural promiscuity combined with opportunity - along with a risk-taking personality common to men like Bill Clinton and John F Kennedy. It's what makes them seek office and what makes us want to vote for them.

No, not at all. They call themselves scientists?

We don't know this for sure, because prehistoric sexual behavior doesn't fossilize, but there's much we can infer from studying how people in foraging cultures live today, he said. Such cultures tend to be relatively egalitarian and promiscuous, at least by American standards, he said. But prostitution is rare, as he believes it was for most of our past.

"There would be no need for prostitutes because there would be very few sexually frustrated men," he said.

So in other words, if Spitzer had been born in 40,000 B.C., he would never have gotten into this fix.

What does that have to do with being promiscuous? Trust and fidelity are meaningless?

The Immoral Gene?

Mike at Christian Cognition with another interesting article.

Excerpt:

If macro-Evolution / natural selection / Darwinism are true – that species are selected to survive based on their survivable traits – is it possible for gay species to fit into the reproductive model? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude that same-sex, sexually-reproductive species cannot reproduce their own kind when uniting together. If there is a gay gene that has evolved over time, wouldn’t those same gay genes actually die? (Therefore, it seems that the gay gene – if there was one – would die after the first generation.) After all, they cannot survive via reproduction. Instead, it seems they would adapt and evolve into heterosexual genes.

And how can it be moral (according to Darwinists) for same-sex, sexually-reproductive species to lay with the same sex of that same species? If Darwinism means that unfit species with doomed traits would eventually die, then why would it be moral for that species to lie with the same sex of that same species when doing so would lead to its own death? Instead, it should absolutely not lie with the same sex of that species. Therefore, shouldn’t the Darwinist strongly oppose homosexuality since the species cannot survive via reproduction (without the assistance of the opposite sex)?

Creating Life From Scratch?

From AP's Seth Borenstein, Artificial life likely in 3 to 10 years.

Around the world, a handful of scientists are trying to create life from scratch
and they're getting closer.

Actually "creating" from what is already existing.

"Creating protocells has the potential to shed new light on our place in the universe," Bedau said. "This will remove one of the few fundamental mysteries about creation in the universe and our role."

Would it really? It would seem to highlight the need for a creator.

Bedau figures there are three major hurdles to creating synthetic life:

• A container, or membrane, for the cell to keep bad molecules out, allow good ones, and the ability to multiply.

• A genetic system that controls the functions of the cell, enabling it to reproduce and mutate in response to environmental changes.

• A metabolism that extracts raw materials from the environment as food and then changes it into energy.

Why not let random processes create life without intelligent interaction?

His idea is that once the container is made, if scientists add nucleotides in the right proportions, then Darwinian evolution could simply take over.

"We aren't smart enough to design things, we just let evolution do the hard work and then we figure out what happened," Szostak said.

Is blind, mindless darwinism better at design? I want to let it design a car for me. It should be easier since it is not a living organism.

Bedau said there are legitimate worries about creating life that could "run amok," but there are ways of addressing it, and it will be a very long time before that is a problem.

"When these things are created, they're going to be so weak, it'll be a huge achievement if you can keep them alive for an hour in the lab," he said. "But them getting out and taking over, never in our imagination could this happen."

Yet, under darwinian evolution, this is what supposedly happened. It brought a wide variety of life that was able to reproduce and eventually take over the planet and produce reading material such as this one.

The Evolution of Evolution

The theory that homo sapiens descended from homo neanderthalensis has already been discarded. Now, a similar outcome between homo erectus and homo habilis has ocurred.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution:

The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man's early evolution — that one of those species evolved from the other.

And it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man.

The old theory is that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became human, Homo sapiens. But Leakey's find suggests those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years. She and her research colleagues report the discovery in a paper published in Thursday's journal Nature.

Should I have been surprised to find the following comments?

Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."

Does that mean macroevolution must never questioned? Is "Evoluton" (from the Associated Press title) a word?

Universe: Spaceship Earth

The History Channel's "Universe" episode "Spaceship Earth" cannot refrain itself from asserting mankind's ancestors are microbial organisms.

The television program shows images of microbes, followed by tadpoles, frogs, and then continues on to finally reveal humans as the newest animals on the block. The evolutionists on the program happily note how similar we are to bacteria.

"Spaceship Earth" comes to a close by incorporating the biggest threat to mankind, yes, global warming. The closing comments give the idea that it's been a good run for us humans. Perhaps we were the most complex organisms on the surface of this planet. Let's build a spaceship too!

I didn't see anything uplifting about how we just happened to evolve into who we are. This reminds me of a comment by an atheist on a message board. He posted, "We are chemically no different from a piece of [expletive removed]. Why should we be treated any differently?".

I wouldn't recommend that person to defend human rights. Obviously, certain themes in shows like the "Universe" do not help in this department.

We have an inherent value because we are made in the image of God. The universe is indeed beautiful and will become moreso.