http://www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php
I just saw Ben Stein's "Expelled" documentary that reveals how political correctness is building a wall of silence around the whole academic community. Academic freedom even free speech is being suppressed through intimidation, loss of tenure, and black balling professors and researchers at the mention of ID who simply want the freedom to research findings that seem to be taking scientific knowledge in a new direction. The argument is "we don't have time for this." Apparently a whole lot of professionals are willing to risk their careers and seem to desire to spend time studing this concept.
This is equivalent to banning and burning books in America.No matter which side of the argument regarding Darwin's origins and intelligent design you are on, I urge everyone to see the documentary. I hope you will ask the same simple questions Ben has asked in his movie and judge for yourself.
If people insist on the argument that "intelligent design" is only a nonsensical religious or philosophical argument rather then a legitimate scientific subject of research, then I say
these people have not read what some pretty brilliant molecular scientists have found through the eyepiece of their microscopes nor
have they been made aware of what some outstanding astrologers have discovered as they look into the universe eyeballing areas never seen before using the Hubble telescope and the astonishing information that has been uncovered about our very unique planet and the universe.
That should make you curious shouldn't it?
This research convinced a very smart Jew - Ben - to risk his career and reputation to go against the tide. It is in fact, the findings coming from new research that is being suppressed because "these findings are inconvenient information" that may point science away from Darwin's theory of origin. It is casting a new light to bear on the conventional wisdom that has been embraced setting aside Darwin's chaotic theory of life's origins and replacing them with the idea that it is impossible for this high form of design to have evolved into such ir-reducible complexity of design. (This is about origins and not evolution ... changes in species.)
The odds are three trillion to one that a single cell could have been put together any more than all the parts of an automobile could also have organized itself and put itself together correctly in order. It is simply not possible.
Now. Shall we figure out the designs?
As Stein shows in his documentary, scientists cannot talk about their findings without fear of being censured and losing financial support. In the film, Stein presents just one little bit of the research and if that doesn't "wow" the viewer, I would wonder if any gray matter were up there.
Why not just look at the findings?
No one can deny that this is a controversial debate and has a religious component to it but should that stop the investigation? However, let the evidence take science where it leads?
Scientists can't bring themselves label their findings as "the discovery of an intelligent design." Apparently it is too politically incorrect to say call it "the discovery of an intelligent designer?" They won't call it "the handy work of God" because they simply don't know what they have found yet.
Refusing to even entertain that evidence is simply many smart minds with doctorates that have become sealed with intellectual glue.
Suppression of new ideas is nothing new?
When Charles Darwin's hypothesis led away from "conventional thinking" of the day regarding life's origin, a great effort was made to suppress his ideas when religious people of faith aghast at Darwin's ideas attempted to quash these ideas and ban them from the schools. The academics types however, were gleeful and hoped for secularizing both science, education, and government had finally a catalysist. Should it not then be surprising that the same thing might happen in reverse when today's scientific community's "conventional wisdom" is a bit challenged. Now it is people of faith who are gleeful while the scientific community are aghast and trying to quash these ideas?
What are they afraid of?
Ben Stein's "Expelled" is trying to drill a small hole in that very solid academic wall of suppression and intimidation. All he wants is academic freedom to allow the research to go forward freely where ever it takes these scientists.
I'm not a smart person but even I can see and understand this science. With this revelation, isn't the whole world being called into accountability.
How wonderful of the Lord to do that!
It's that pesky DNA and all those 150 different proteins ... those essential tiny entities necessary for building a single living organism ... that's got smart men rethinking Darwin's theories of origins, and it's not creationism or religious fanatics pushing the debate now. These are extraordinary extremely brilliant scientists with credentials out the wazoo. The evidence is this: it takes over 250 different kinds of proteins, all cooperating together ... doing their unique tasks precisely at the right time in a perfect order to create one cell.
Now ponder that. Over 250 separate proteins must line up perfectly in a certain order ... all 250 of those little critters ... did you get that? They must assemble themselves very much like one would assemble a car on an assembly line ... just as an engineer would have designed an automobile and made specific plans to put together.
For that to happen to create just one cell by accident is 2 trillion to one odds. Okay if you did make one, how would you make another? Hum....
One molecular scientist made this statement,"we need the engineering department to help us understand cell structure. The thing looks like a combustion engine."
Logically, a cell is clearly built by a design that has to have had a plan ... and the most intelligent conclusion is that
the origin of life could not have occurred by accident. There goes the Darwin's Origins theory of a self evolving living cell. (We are speaking of origin not evolution.)
Instead of less debate there should be more... lots more questions and research. So why not look for more logical intelligent design in research? No. We're going to deny that idea? How absurd.
Scientists are not saying "God's is the designer" ...they can't do that. Therefore, they are saying ... let's leave the god thing open and just call it intelligent designing. The debate is coming from
the obvious evidence of intelligent design present in both the biological sciences and the planetary sciences.
Truth shall eventually prevail. Religious people and academics can't stop it. This debate continues to refuse to go away because molecular scientists around the globe are not going to shut up. These scientists cannot deny what they recognize under their microscopes for they are seeing "complex designed structures" in the simplest forms of life. They can no more be quiet about this than could Christopher Columbus.
Please go see this film. It makes a compelling point and it shows all sides of the argument and then you can decide if we need to burn books and destroy a lot of very brilliant careers in science.
If you want to actually see the research, I will direct you to two DVD's and I guarantee you will never ever believe in Darwin's theories of origin again. I will never accept that science because the evidence is so clear.
I challenge you to read this article from a Japanese researcher (hardly a Christian influence there); here is a one paragraph from this article:
"Prof. Namba first saw an electron micrograph of the bacterial flagellum and its motor when he was a graduate student.
He was surprised to see such complex and sophisticated structure exist in living organisms. It impressed him deep enough to switch his research from muscle to flagella after a while.
“Looking at the shape of the flagellar basal body, it is obviously designed to rotate. Looking at a picture of the flagellar motor on the wall every day, I feel up towards revealing the mystery by any means.” The design concepts of protein molecules to realize various functional mechanisms by their three-dimensional architecture are quite different from those we design by our engineering technique with bulk materials.
Folding of single polymer chain into some three-dimensional structures gives a huge amount of freedom and flexibility in both function and structure. Individual atoms are used as functional parts, and this is the essential feature that makes biological macromolecules distinct from artificial machines at present. The design concepts have to be well understood and learned for future nanotechnology applications.
So far, for the flagellar motor, the deeper our insights get into the mechanism, the deeper the mystery becomes. Now the mystery of conformational switching of the filament has been solved, and in terms of the number of protein molecules, the filament makes up 99% of the entire flagellum, it does not mean 99% of the mystery is solved. It is the motor mechanism that is even more difficult to understand."
http://www.nanonet.go.jp/english/mailmag/2004/011a.html
Or google: flagellum
Posts
