Buy Zopiclone Without Prescription

Ben Stein in Expelled Buy Zopiclone Without Prescription, Did you know that all over the country, nay the world, people are being persecuted for their belief and intelligence. Zopiclone description, Did you know that a small, powerful elite controls everything that children are exposed to in school for their own devious, online buying Zopiclone hcl, Doses Zopiclone work, Darwinistic ends. Did you know that only a complete outsider, rx free Zopiclone, Zopiclone long term, a rebel with nothing but guts and a heart of steel, can expose the truth, Zopiclone natural. After Zopiclone, You might not know these things because none of them are true. But the makers of the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" and star Ben Stein will try to shovel that particular pile of poop in theaters this February, Zopiclone recreational. Thanks to Pharyngula, an excellent blog by an actual scientist, for the tip, Buy Zopiclone Without Prescription. Comprar en línea Zopiclone, comprar Zopiclone baratos, From the movie's home page:

Ben realizes that he has been “Expelled,” and that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, real brand Zopiclone online, Buy Zopiclone no prescription, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, Zopiclone without a prescription, Zopiclone no rx, random chance.

The movie Expelled, in a sense, where can i buy cheapest Zopiclone online, Buy Zopiclone online cod, is nothing new. It follows the established tactics of the creationist / intelligent design crowd, Zopiclone no prescription, Buy generic Zopiclone, trying to fight the "materialistic" "darwinists" in the court of public opinion rather than in the labs or peer-reviewed journals. It's yet another attack on science, Zopiclone samples. About Zopiclone, "And what's so wrong with that," you might ask, Zopiclone street price, Zopiclone blogs, "this is a democracy after all."

We don't do science by popular vote for the same reason that we don't design bridges and perform heart surgery using a jury of our peers. Buy Zopiclone Without Prescription, The value of a scientific theory can only be judged by it's correspondence to reality and it's predictive power.

Despite all of Ben's moral indignation, where can i cheapest Zopiclone online, Zopiclone coupon, intelligent design has yet to come up with any testable, falsifiable theories, Zopiclone from canadian pharmacy. Zopiclone wiki, Most of the arguments I've read boil down to one of three things: "The Bible says so," "I know it when I see it, purchase Zopiclone, Zopiclone dose, " or "I am very good at statistics but my conclusion is hard-wired into my assumptions." This is America, so you are free to believe any or all of those things, Zopiclone canada, mexico, india. Zopiclone class, Just don't get upset when you say that to a scientist and he or she asks you, "okay, Zopiclone from canada, Cheap Zopiclone no rx, so how can we test it to see if it's true or not?"

You don't need an undergrad degree in biology to understand this. Geneticists, Zopiclone trusted pharmacy reviews, Online buy Zopiclone without a prescription, working with a framework built upon the theory of evolution, are creating new things every day, Zopiclone schedule. You are eating corn and soy that they genetically modified, Buy Zopiclone Without Prescription. Where can i buy Zopiclone online, Geologists, working with a framework that includes millions of years to form the earth rather than a few days, are finding oil and other resources every day. Every time you fill up at the gas tank, you are disproving creationism.

In fact, for all the money spent on selling this idea to the American public, creationism and intelligent design have yet to come up with a single useful technology. Intelligent design advocates lose their jobs in the science fields not because of some elitist conspiracy, Mr. Buy Zopiclone Without Prescription, Stein, but because the free market rewards results.

And the worst thing about this whole episode is that casting Ben Stein as a rebel is about as reidiculous as you can get. How many underdog crusaders for truth do see laughing it up with George W. Bush.

Ben Stein and George W.  Bush laugh it up

Ben Stein wrote speeches for Nixon, Buy Zopiclone Without Prescription. You can put him in shorts and have him pose with a spray can on movie posters from here to Walla Walla Washington, it won't make him into some kind of rebel underdog fighting against The Man. Ben Stein is The Man.

To sum up:

  • Creationism is kept out of the science books because it's not science, and they don't have any results;

  • Creationist hope to make an end-run around the scientific method with movies and other clever marketing techniques; and

  • Ben Stein is a law professor, a Hollywood actor, and a political elite - he's not Erin Brockovich or Edward R. Murrow.


Similar posts: Seroquel For Sale. Modalert For Sale. Buy Topamax Without Prescription. Terbinafine For Sale. Cialis For Sale. Is Niravam addictive. Is ProSom safe. Carisoprodol duration. Buy generic Xanax. What is Lexotan.
Trackbacks from: Buy Zopiclone Without Prescription. Buy Zopiclone Without Prescription. Buy Zopiclone Without Prescription. Buy Zopiclone Without Prescription. Buy Zopiclone Without Prescription. Zopiclone for sale. Zopiclone no rx. Zopiclone description. Order Zopiclone from United States pharmacy. Zopiclone trusted pharmacy reviews.

  1. [...] Creationism (Intelligent design, creationism, whatever) called “Expelled” but it seems Jason at Unsought Input has done a fine job summarizing it: The movie Expelled, in a sense, is nothing new. It follows the [...]

    William K. Wolfrum » Blog Archive » Ben Stein: Only in the U.S. would a creationist give financial advice in Forbes
    September 10th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
  2. I am looking forward to this movie with great anticipation. Contrary to conjecture on this site, I personally know of one professor at George Mason University (Carolyn Crocker) who was “EXPELLED” for exposing problems with Darwinism. The horror of questioning the church dogma! Hardcore Evolutionist have become as fanatical as the fundies and the time has come to expose those who would impose extradition upon their dissidents. Tell me Jason, how do you summarize a movie you have yet to see??

    September 18th, 2007 at 10:58 am
  3. Thanks for your comment, Curmudgeon-at-large. I didn’t summarize the movie, I quoted the summary from the movie’s web site. I don’t see the conjecture you are complaining about – did you read the article?

    If Carolyn Crocker has actual evidence, or even a testable hypothesis, she should submit her findings for publication. Talk all you want about “questioning church dogma” and “fanatical” “hardcore evolutionists,” but I have yet to see anything from the intelligent design camp that resembles science.

    Please point me to a single testable hypothesis or working technology devised through intelligent design. Thanks.

    September 18th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
  4. Well said!
    I really have to say that as an atheist there are a lot of religious people (more then I imagined) who are really off the board with their fanaticism. The Christian God believers are insane, they seem to have a huge stranglehold and they keep pushing their own beliefs on everyone especially atheists. I mean they seem to think that that everyone is out to get them and that atheists are the spawn of the devil and that we’re out to take their ‘souls’.

    I was most surprised at how many of these people there really are, everyone I know is either agnostic/atheist or just not overly religious. But now and then you encounter some one who’s just let it all go and they’re entire world revolves around the existence of a god – and to even suggest that he just may not exist in the first place is to crush their entire world and so they close themselves off to any sense of rationality. I’ll say it again the overly religious Christian communities are dragging humans backwards in time.

    November 3rd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
  5. Glad somebody smelled this crap besides me.

    David C
    November 16th, 2007 at 10:05 am
  6. I am a new atheist and I am really happy that I am not alone out here. There are more of us than there are of them. I’m sure this will be a big hit with the ID crowd. Did anyone catch the NOVA special on the most recent case for Intelligent Design? It is called “Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.” I saved it and watched it with our two daughters. Kudo’s PBS and NOVA!

    Greg C
    November 18th, 2007 at 11:45 am
  7. Hey are we (atheists) allowed to protest this movie? Haven’t we been waiting for this?!

    I had to wade through a line of protesters to take my little brother to Harry Potter, while they shouted obscenities at us!

    Is it my turn now?!

    It’s funny. Now that I’m given the chance, all I want to do is see the movie. Maybe atheists DO have a monopoly on reason, and just maybe they have a bit of a monopoly on ethics.

    Shawn Pitman
    December 4th, 2007 at 10:05 am
  8. Evolution is not a proven theory. It’s only a model and a weak model at that. Proponents hide behind millions of years to evade the question of proof, but then criticize creationists for not providing the type of proof they demand. Evolution falls within a naturalistic ideological framework which excludes the possibility of an intelligent creator from the outset. This is the epitome of unscientific.

    This is a double standard for the self proclaimed liberals who claim to be open minded but end up being myopic extremists discarding real evidence which demolishes their model.

    A scientific law has more weight than a scientific theory which has more weight than a model. Assuming uniformitarianism, the second law of thermodynamics which is one of the most well proven laws of science precludes the transition of a system from a state of disorder to a state of higher order without intervention external to that system. The prescribed transitions of non-life to life and apes to humans could not have happened using the known laws of science regardless of the amount of time you give them. No one has ever observed an ape turn into a human. The so called evidence for evolution consists of a spotty fossil record fraught by controversy and fraud.

    A basic premise of evolution is the idea that the initial cause of the universe was chance. This is an absurdity. Chance does not have an ontological substrate. It cannot produce anything. It is merely a term which expresses mathematical probability of an event given understanding of natural law. Chance is the god of the modern atheist. But chance is powerless. It is a device used to hide the ignorance of real causes.

    The great tragedy of the plague of evolution is the ideological damage it produces. It served as the basis for Natzi ideology regarding the aerian race, and the elimination of the inferior races. Evolution is racist. It also served as the basis for communist ideology. Thus an unscientific idea claimed to be fact, caused close to 100 million deaths in the 20th century alone. I speak as one who came from a communist country where atheism was the national religion and if you believed otherwise you would be greatly persecuted. Evolution not creationism strikes man back to a level of primitive behavior through the denial of meaning of life and morality. Any moral standards, such as the prohibition of murder and treating your neighbor kindly is borrowed capital from the Christian world view.

    Seeker of truth
    December 28th, 2007 at 4:29 am
  9. Thanks for the comment, Seeker of Truth, you obviously put a lot of thought and effort into it. Unfortunately, you have a few misconceptions which undermine your main points.

    First off, evolution has plenty of “proof” (I would rather say evidence), as any freshman biology student can tell you. Do you think it’s a coincidence that every discovery in the entire field of genetics has continued to confirm evolution as the most likely mechanism? Just because you don’t know the evidence, it doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist.

    Second, ignoring your partisan dig at liberals, on the question of open mindedness I would ask you this question: as a Christian, what evidence would make you stop believing in the Bible? Find real-world evidence in favor of creation that others can replicate and scientists will happily accept it. And that’s not open minded?

    Third, the argument from thermodynamics sounds really strong and scientific until you realize that the earth is not a closed system. There’s this mysterious, arcane external energy source you may have heard rumor of… the sun. As for the spotty fossil record, good luck with that argument. Every year more fossils are discovered and dated, filling in more gaps in our knowledge. Your god of the gaps argument will have to fit in some very small gaps.

    For the rest of your argument, I would recommend you stop conflating the scientific theory of evolution, which is backed up by tons of fossil, genetic, and experimental evidence, with political and religious notions like atheism and communism. I’m sorry that 100 years ago Karl Marx claimed communism was scientific, he was full of crap. He didn’t understand the scientific method and neither do you.

    Again, I have to challenge you, or Ben Stein, or anyone else for that matter: Just show me some real evidence of creation and you win. That’s all you have to do.

    December 28th, 2007 at 9:48 am
  10. To answer your first point I would suggest that if evolution has so much proof, go ahead and identify the top 5 proof points of evolution. The “proof” that freshmen in biology can discuss is mostly hearsay from their professors or uncontested claims from their biology textbooks. I’m interested in proof that passes both the empirical and rational tests of the scientific method. I am aware of frauds such as discoveries of the 12 supposed transitional hominds. But all of them have been found to be either non-transitional forms or some other type of animal. In some cases clear cases of fraud such as Haeckels embryos were used in text books long after they were prooved to be fraudulent.

    To answer your second point, I was identifying some serious flaws with the model of evolution, which I believe make it less cogent than a model which does allow for transcendent intervention in the creation of the universe. Regarding real evidence for creation, I believe the cosmological argument coupled with the need for the initial cause to be transcendant and eternal, as well as the teleological arguments work very well. The problem we have here is that since none of us were actually around when this universe came into being we don’t have those empirical aspects covered for either evolution or creation. However I believe reason is reliable enough to apply inductive processes which make the previous arguments work very well. Self creation is analytically false, while eternal universe doesn’t align well with observation (e.g. big bang model points to a definite begin point).

    Regarding the third point about the second law of thermodynamics, I was actually referring to the universe as the system in question, not just the earth. The law of entropy as far as science can tell applies to the entire universe. Thus intervention from outside the universe would have been needed to inject order into it, or at least temporarily violate the law of entropy to produce the higher degree of order. Again regarding the fossil record I would like to see some concrete examples.

    I deduce from your comments that you don’t agree with the morality of communism. I don’t believe Karl Marx claimed communism was scientific. Rather he was focused on creating a classless society, and a new man devoid of the bonds of his superstitious past. The communism experiment turned out to be an excercise in confirming the depravity of man.

    As far as my understanding of the scientific method I would appreciate you pointing out the error of my understanding of it or what you see as problematic.

    My opinion regarding the teaching of evolution is to allow an open market of ideas, and allow discussions similar to this one to happen in schools, universities and the media. I see the evolutionary model as too frail to be presented as fact and I believe we would benefit more from an honest acknowledgement of the deficiency of evolution, and a serious consideration of cogent alternatives such as intelligent design. Beside this I see a great problem with teaching kids they are simply evolved animals and expect that they won’t live as animals (e.g. killing each other, promiscuous sex, etc.).

    Seeker of truth
    December 28th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
  11. Thanks for your reply. I can gladly provide references to evidence for evolution from peer-reviewed journals – here is a nice summary of 30 articles, for example. Again I take issue with your use of the word “proof” – science is not math, where theorems can be proven correct. Judging from your mention of Haeckels embryos, etc., I think you might want to read up on what’s going on in genetics and molecular biology. Seriously, do we really need to argue over some dude drawing embryos 100 years ago? Recapitulation was abandoned a long time ago when better evidence came to light. You see it in text books under the introductory history section of the chapter.

    Second, do you really think that you and I had to be there when the universe came into being in order to collect empirical evidence about the origin of the universe? That’s way too high a standard for me – I’d be willing to let astronomers use telescopes. Here you are also conflating at least three separate things – the origin of the universe, the origin of life from non-living matter, and evolution. I know that Genesis covers them all in a few pages but that doesn’t make them the same thing.

    The cosmological argument? Really? The one that says, everything that begins must have a cause, and the universe began, so it must have a cause? I suppose you then make an unfounded assumption that the cause is God and call it evidence? Listen, it’s turtles all the way down. Before Planck time current science can’t really say anything, so it would be equally valid to assert that the Big Bang started when the Flying Spaghetti Monster flicked His Noodly Appendage. And you’re still not talking about evolution.

    Now for thermodynamics. The second law does NOT say that no order can arise, ever. If that were the case, once Carnot had figured it out he would have given up on heat engines and we’d all be riding horses. It means that you can’t completely convert heat into work, not that you can’t do any work. So it’s perfectly possible for, say, an RNA molecule to form from smaller molecules, so long as once you add up all the inputs and outputs of the reaction you end up with net waste heat.

    As to the scientific method, you start by asking for evidence that is both empirical and rational but seem willing to accept completely un-empirical musings like the teleological argument.

    Karl Marx did indeed claim Communism was scientific, for one of many examples see Critique of the Gotha Program (1875). This claim of his has been used by the religious to denigrate science for years. I don’t have too much to say on the morality of communism (other than the obvious immorality of many communist regimes), as someone who both sells his productive time to an employer and owns some means of production, I think the whole thing was based on false dichotomies.

    The free market of ideas argument is one of the most devious forms of the Wedge Strategy. Here’s the problem – it sounds like you’re asking for freedom and fairness, but in reality what you are asking for is more akin to determining the value of Pi by popular vote. The arguments for and against evolution have already been batted around in a free market of ideas for hundreds of years, but the empirical evidence keeps either confirming evolution or at the very least not requiring outside intervention.

    I can’t tell you what kids will do if you teach them they’re just evolved animals, but teaching them that they are God’s own handiwork was tried for thousands of years and didn’t seem to prevent killing and sex..

    I really appreciate you comments, this is a very interesting exchange.

    December 28th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
  12. Here is some compelling evidence against evolution. The example regarding embryos is just an example of some of the propaganda surrounding the spread of the ideas of evolution.
    I’m saying that we would have had to observe the origin of the universe, origin of life and actual transitions among species to pass the empirical test of the scientific theory. Otherwise we rely on induction which involves the observer filling in the gaps. How do you determine that an extinct species is a transitional form instead of simply a separate species that happened to exist at one time. The leap to deciding it was transitional is conjecture and cannot be confirmed with certainty even assuming uniformitarianism without observation of the process itself.
    Many do attack the cosmological argument in this way and commit the straw man fallacy. Let me explain how the cosmological argument works. There are only two possible types of origin for something that exists. The first is something else created it. The second is that it always existed. If we assume the big bang model is consistent with reality, the universe had a definite beginning point. This leads us to deduce that it had to be created by an agent outside of it. This agent had to be transcendent since it could not have been part of the universe since that would claim self-creation. Self-creation is an analytically false premise. The flying spaghetti monster comment is an example of a component fallacy. But this line of reasoning shows, logic necessitates a transcendent agent external to the universe to have created it.
    Actually in Carnot’s case and for every transition from low order to high order system such as a single embryo growing in complexity into a human with fully developed organs, we see the effect of the external intervention of this transcendent agent who programmed the system through the genetic code to overcome the law of thermodynamics. Without this intervention natural laws could not have produced the precise complexity we see. Long periods of time would only increase the disorder of such system.
    “Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd… The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life.” (Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley)

    See this article for in depth treatment of this subject.
    I’m saying that evolution cannot be proven empirically since we cannot observe it. The teleological argument works in that by induction the high degree of order, precision, and complexity is clearly the work of an intelligent designer. Why did Carl Sagan claim that if we could only detect a string of prime number from outer space in the context of the SETI program we would have proof of intelligent life forms apart from us, but when we see something as complex and precise as the human eye it is considered by evolutionists as the result of non-intelligent random processes. No evolutionist in his right mind would doubt that the faces on Mt. Rushmore were the result of erosion or some meteor strike. The human eye is far more complex than those faces and would have required far more intelligence to assemble. I’m not claiming this to be empirical evidence as in actual observation of the creation of the universe, life, etc. I’m saying that through induction the empirical observations of the natural world lead to the more plausible conclusion that the natural world was designed by an intelligent designer.
    I’m not asking to determine the value of pi by popular vote. The problem we have with evolution is that since the evolution process itself cannot be observed and is only a conjecture subject to the whim of the observer, it is different than determining pi which is a directly observable event.
    There is no empirical evidence that confirms evolution. Common substance (as in the case of the commonality of genes among apes and humans) does not mean common source. It could just as well mean common designer. If you have a multiple neighborhoods all consisting of houses which are made of 80% bricks, that doesn’t mean that one house transitioned into another house. It just means common building blocks were used by same designer.
    It’s true that humans were told about God’s laws over the years but some people even refuse to believe He exists let alone obey him. That’s how even though people were taught about God, acted in a way inconsistent with His laws and broke His laws by killing, stealing, etc… With evolution there is no basis for claiming these to be wrong without borrowed capital from Christianity.

    Seeker of truth
    December 29th, 2007 at 3:53 am
  13. Seeker of truth
    December 29th, 2007 at 4:01 am
  14. [...] I agree with this guy. I had a lot of respect for Ben Stein until I heard of his latest movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It’s a propaganda film pushing the Intelligent Design agenda. Basically, it’s the teachings of the Bible worded in such a way so as to appear scientific so it’d be more “acceptable” to be pushed onto children in schools, which is complete horseshit. Science is about disproving things, and there’s no way in hell you can disprove fairy tales. It’s like this: “You can say the tooth fairy doesn’t exist. But I know she does and that’s all there is to it.” That’s the way they want science to be with ID. And it just doesn’t work that way and I hope it never does. For humanity’s sake. You can bet if everything is “God’s” way, technology, medicine would go down the shitter. [...]

    Welcome To Paradise » Blog Archive » A Rebel Against Sanity, Maybe…
    December 29th, 2007 at 10:12 am
  15. Seeker of Truth, I appreciate your earnest efforts but I have some advice. If you want to effectively seek truth, try listening once in a while.

    Once more…

    Above you say that the only evidence you are willing to accept is direct, immediate observation. If that is the case then evolution is the least of your worries. How do you muster the courage to walk outside every day? You can’t see what’s beyond your front door, or down the street, or around the corner! Believing that your office will be in the same place it was yesterday is just induction, by your definition. I am glad I don’t live in your world. You have eliminated entire fields of study – there can be no archeology, no forensics, no history, no physics below what we can see with a microscope, etc. You honestly don’t see how this is a problem?

    In any event, we have plenty of opportunity to see evolution in action, right in front of our eyes. For example, the development and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Or you could get yourself some fruit flies and conduct any number of simple experiments to see change over a few generations due to natural selection. And don’t get started on the macro – vs – micro argument, large changes with organisms with longer generations just take more time.

    This is going on too long for a the comments section… I’m going to write a new post addressing some of your points, feel free to follow the discussion there.

    December 29th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
  16. [...] we had some interesting comments on a post about Ben Stein’s upcoming creationist propaganda film, Expelled.  Since the comments section was exceeding length of the original article, I thought it would be [...]

    Creationism is Not Science, Part 1: Thermodynamics Doesn’t Work that Way - Unsought Input
    December 29th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
  17. By stressing the requirement for empirical evidence I was not claiming that we can’t rely on the laws of physics. In fact I was conveying that induction along with empirical observation allows us to rely on reliability of natural laws to such an extent that we can improve our quality of life as has happened in the past few century through the technological advances.

    What I’m saying about evolution however is that since we have not observed the transition of one species to another, the fossils, rock strata and any other observations about the world as it is today, don’t make the case for the conjecture of transition from non-life to life and simple lifeforms to complex lifeforms. That transition is still an opinion which could only be confirmed by the scientific method through observation of the actual transition itself.

    Regarding bacteria and fruitfly argument, that is a change that happens within the specie itself. The argument of irreducible complexity whre an organism had to have existed with all it’s systems or else you would have a dead organism is quite compelling especially since the counter-argument of redundancy is lacking in the fossil record and consistency with known physical and biological processes.

    Regarding the bashing of creationism or the Bible as unscientific, a key point in these discussions was that there is a very sound basis for approaching creationism in a scientific manner. My opinion is that creationism is a better model requiring less improvisation to fit empirical evidence than evolution. Evolution itself does not preclude the existence of God. In fact the aspects of evolution which go against the laws of physics (e.g. transition from non-life to life, low order to high order) would have required a supernatural or powerful enough being to overcome natural law.

    Seeker of truth
    January 2nd, 2008 at 11:26 pm
  18. I’m not a fan of Ben Stein, but I was attracted by the topic of creation science. Will continue in the other post.

    Seeker of truth
    January 3rd, 2008 at 1:42 am
  19. [...] read this interesting article, “Ben Stein is not a Rebel, and Creationism is not Science“, then take a look at the documentation available on [...]

    Greg Sadetsky » Blog Archive » Do not watch this movie?
    March 24th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
  20. The folks at RationalWiki have drawn up an excellent point-by-point analysis of the Expelled debate ‘Leader’s Guide’ that is available for downloading from their website. You should check it out, it really tears it apart:

    March 31st, 2008 at 7:26 pm
  21. I can’t stand the advertising for this movie. Move over boring old stuffy scientists with your stupid evolution theory Ben Steins in town to kick your asses with Creationisms Kapow! Their taking a page out of Michael Moore play book with the use of snappy edits, humorous situations and rock music to make it seem like a hip movie. This movie is the problem with documentaries, theyre not objective obvservers any more but just propaganda.

    D WallZ
    April 15th, 2008 at 10:06 am
  22. [...] finding its way into schools by hiding behind the facade of intelligent design. We’ve written about it in the [...]

    If You Think Creationism is Bad, Just Wait till You See What’s Next - Unsought Input
    June 15th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
  23. The only thing that I think of after reading this is that evolution is still a scientific theory, NOT A PROVEN FACT. It takes faith to believe in either evolution or creationism. I say let people believe what they want to believe and don’t be so afraid of healthy open debates, movies, museums, etc. WOOP dee freakin’ doo!

    February 21st, 2009 at 10:56 pm
  24. Hey Julie,

    Thanks for the post, allow me to distinguish ‘scientific theory’ and ‘laypeople theory’ for you.

    Scientific theories are theories based on evidence, and as such can be tested. Examples of this theory can be found in the theory of gravity, evolution etc.

    Laypeople theories are theories not based on evidence, but rather philosophical conjecture. Laypeople theories do not have to be testable, but they are not strong enough to enter the scientific realm. An example of such a theory would be creationism (and by extension, ‘intelligent design’).

    Seldom are there ever any “PROVEN FACT(s)” in science. Science isn’t about “PROVEN FACT(s)” rather it is about forming hypotheses and forming conclusions about what the results *might* mean and what the results *suggest*. It is foolish for a scientist to ever claim that “this causes this”, rather they state “our results suggest that this might have an impact on this” etc.

    What most rational people take offense with, is that these creationists want to teach creationism in a scientific class room, when it so obviously has *nothing* to do with science. Further, creationism’s main goal (when viewing their antics) is to, rather than provide evidence to the scientific community, just debase *everything* about evolution (in a very underhanded manner).


    May 11th, 2009 at 4:55 am
  25. I enjoyed the debate in the comments between Jason and Seeker of truth.
    *Gives Julie a ball*
    “Here’s a ball. You can bounce it.”

    Christopher Poole
    May 11th, 2009 at 6:01 am
  26. Seen the movie and I’m not sure what all the fuss is about. As far as I can tell, Ben isn’t advocating creationism but warring against consensus (for better or worst).

    In the UK, I haven’t seen a huge rift between Christians and science, yet in the “New Scientist” (one of my active subscriptions) the subject comes up a lot and, to be quite honest, I just wish the two schools of thought would leave one another alone. I don’t see why this tension exists in 2010.

    Time to end the feud, perhaps?

    Life goes on…

    Andrew Marunchak
    April 23rd, 2010 at 10:51 am

Post a Comment

(or leave a trackback to your blog)