Comments on: Expelled! and the Atheism-Evolution Connection

By: Henry Neufeld

Henry Neufeld — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:23:49 +0000

It’s interesting to me that you write a comment trying to convince me that Stein is just making a reasonable argument, yet do so by making some unreasonable arguments yourself. To wit:

1. Nowhere is the controversy about accepting evolutionary theory as fact. There are facts which are explained by a theory. Scientists accept the theory of evolution as a valid theory.

2. Darwinism is just a codeword used by antievolutionists. If there is any “Darwinism” it is simply the theory of evolution itself. It is not some sort of philosophy.

3. Spending time on the Nazis was definitely “over the top” and also evidence of moral cowardice on the part of the producers and all involved with the movie.

4. Research continues on the origin of life. That is as it should be. There will always be things we don’t know yet and which we must research.

You say:

You have to admit, it was comical how the Darwinists are OK with a theory that an alien life form �seeded� life on earth, but replace alien with God, nand they dismiss it out of hand.

Actually, I don’t have to admit anything of the kind. I would expect any scientist to reject “God did it” out of hand as a scientific explanation. As a Christian, I say God did it whether scientists have explained it or not. Once it’s explained, I can say, “that’s how God did it.”

But the “God” part is not part of science, and should not be.

By: Doug LIndsey

Doug LIndsey — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:06:17 +0000

In this film, there was no “comparison of scientists supporting the theory of evolution to Nazis”.

In this film, Stein argued that “Dawinism”, or the acceptance of evolution theory as FACT, had reached a religious equivalent within the scientific community.

His argument was that the modern scientific community is acting towards evolution’s “non-believers” or “doubters” by ostracizing them in just the same way that those they normally criticize (religious believers) tend to “exclude” those who don’t believe the same things they do.

The reference to Naziism was to show that, just as many atrocities have come about due to religion, an equally atrocious situation was brought about by a radical extension of Darwin’s theories. It was an over-the-top attempt to expose hypocrisy within the modern scientific community.

The point is, there are MANY holes in evolution theory, and, as Stein points out, nobody has yet to demonstrate a provable theory of how life started on earth.

You have to admit, it was comical how the Darwinists are OK with a theory that an alien life form “seeded” life on earth, but replace alien with God, nand they dismiss it out of hand.

By: Airtightnoodle

Airtightnoodle — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:59:46 +0000

I meant, of course, that I am in complete agreement with the POST. Not the joking comment above.

By: Airtightnoodle

Airtightnoodle — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:58:57 +0000

Amen! I am in complete agreement.

By: Siamang

Siamang — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:37:00 +0000

Yes, but without evolution, there wouldn’t have been Nazi’s.

We’d all be bacteria or something. See, it’s all evolution’s fault!

By: Chris Eyre

Chris Eyre — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:23:43 +0000

Let me go beyond what you’ve said (with which I agree), and say that Christianity requires that we take our responsibility within God’s creation to change what we can as instruments of His will. We are not outside the creation, we have been given the ability to change it, and that too is God’s will.

And I know that God’s will is that I protect, not that I destroy. Despite the fact that his will has also been that I become an efficient predator…

By: Joe M

Joe M — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:43:30 +0000

“Atheists are generally good, moral, productive people, and there is nothing about their belief system that says they will be anything else.”

I can’t begin to tell you how nice and rare it is to hear that from a Christian. Thanks.

By: Henry Neufeld

Henry Neufeld — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:27:18 +0000

I think the key problem here is fundamental: That which is does not necessarily equate to that which ought to be. We change things from their natural state all the time. There would have to be a basic case made that “survival of the fittest” is the moral way to run a society.

I believe God used it to diversify life in the universe. But that doesn’t make it workable when the goal is different. I do think there is a constant tension between freedom and safety, however, and that full freedom is not consistent with safety, nor full safety with freedom. I would imagine it is, of course, possible to be totally unsafe and totally unfree.

Does not Christianity in many cases offer survival to the unfittest, or at a minimum, equal survival to all, irrespective of fitness?

By: Chris Eyre

Chris Eyre — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:50:09 +0000

“I object both to the comparison of scientists supporting the theory of evolution to Nazis and the equation of acceptance of evolution with atheism, but I do so for rather different reasons.”

I suppose it has to be accepted that the Nazis were exponents of eugenics, and eugenics is based on mimicking Darwinian natural selection with forethought and positive action (a position which Richard Dawkins abhors, and thinks we should strive to avoid at all costs). One might say that that is usurping God’s prerogative, but then again humanity does that all the time, and arguably has been placed by God in a position to do that.

My own morality rebels against eugenics, and against radical libertarianism (which I consider it’s close relation).

But I have to remark that the socio-economic systems we have in place (perhaps particularly in Social-Democratic Europe) are very arguably currently encouraging the survival and propagation of the unfittest.

It’s not a simple issue.