I grew up in Los Gatos, California in a family of 14 children. I'm currently living in the state of Texas with my lovely wife and daughter. I am a computer programmer and a proud member of the Air Force Reserves.
Ben Stein came out with a documentary called, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", where he demonstrated discrimination in science against the Creationist and Intelligent Design people.
Richard Dawkins and other evolutionist are saying that they were deceived hiding the fact that the film was about "Intelligent Design". Why do they care what the movie was about when the documentary didn't make them look like idiots, but their own words did.
Of course, all of the left-wing attacks are out in full force attacking the movie. However, I think Ben Stein did a great job in interviewing both sides of the argument. When I have watched shows on the History channel about the Bible, or Noah's flood, they have always shown only one side of the issue. One geologist on this program said, "There is no evidence for a world wide flood." Are they saying that they couldn't find one geologist that believes in Noah's flood? They definitely didn't look very hard if that is the case. That is the same thing that is going on with the theory of evolution. We are presented with one side and only one side.
The fact is that there are many scientist that do not believe in the evolutionary theory and if they question it, they are reprimanded for it.
One attack on the movie is by Catsoulis where she said, "One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry."
Why does she say that? It is because the documentary is telling the truth?
The fact is that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory. The evolutionist are quite scared of the creationist, and that is why so few of them would be willing to debate them.
Again in my Ida Evolution post, I keep getting attacked by the Atheist who do not agree with me. Apparently they have no arguments but attacks. The last person said that he doesn't have respect for me because I said Isaac Newton was a Creationist. The fact is that the theory of Evolution existed before Darwin and my point is that Isaac Newton was a scientist and believed in God. However, I also continously mention that there are many scientists today that reject the theory of evolution. It seems that many Atheist are unable to analyze the facts to logically debate the subject intelligently so they start attacking me.
The fact is that many people have been brainwashed by the theory of evolution quoting information without every analyzing the facts. Even when I give a counter argument, most evolutionist (that aren't scientists) ignore what I said and continue with their nonfactual arguments. I am going to now present to you a look at the evidence for evolution written and compiled by my brother Andy Dias.
I would encourage you to analyze this information intelligently and hold your comments to the facts and not your feelings. It seems to me that Evolutionist are basing their opinion on how they feel, and not the actual scientific evidence.
What is the debate:
Evolution
Intelligent Design+Young/Earth/Cataclysm
Is the paradigm of evolution a solid explanation for the origin of natural phenomena?
Is there evidence that nature is so fine-tuned that a designer must be recognized? Is there evidence for a “young” earth whose surface was completely eroded in a cataclysmic flood?
Pre Notes: The Paradigm of Evolution must be distinguished from the theory of evolution. The Paradigm of Evolution goes well beyond the so called origin of the species and attempts to explain the existence of nature. It should be stated that Intelligent Design and Young Earth/Cataclysm theories are not the same. The Intelligent Design (ID) community simply holds that the complexity of nature implies or even requires design. The term Creator is seldom used by these scientists in their presentations due, in part, to the bias of the Evolution crowd against theistic arguments. On the other hand, scientists who hold to a Young Earth/Cataclysm model would embrace much of what the ID community holds, but they would not avoid the use of the term Creator. They further hold that the earth is relatively young (some would say as young as five to six thousand years since it was created) and that there was a cataclysmic flood early in the history of the world. For simplicity, I have combined these two theories taking the more extreme position that the universe was both designed and that the earth is young having suffered a great and universal flood.
The references in these arguments are not fully documented. In many cases they are out of date, but the arguments still hold. In truth, the more that man learns about the complexity of nature, the less likely evolution appears.
An Intelligent Design supporter, William A. Dembski, came up with five questions that evolutionists would rather dodge.
They are:
1) According to Darwin, the absence of intermediate fossil forms “is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” What new fossil finds, if any, have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago? Do they overturn Darwin’s bleak assessment of evolutionary theory? If the absence of intermediate fossil forms holds as much today as it did back then, why should anyone accept evolution?
2) According to evolutionist Richard Dawkins, the “evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design.” Yet he also states, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” How does Dawkins know that living things only appear to be designed but are not actually designed?
3) The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a scientific research program that looks for signs of intelligence from distant space. Should biologists likewise be looking for signs of intelligence in biological systems? Why or why not? Could actual intelligent design in biological systems be scientifically detectable?
4) Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans? Evolutionists claim that these structures evolved. But if so, how? Could such machines have features that place them beyond the reach of evolution?
5) What evidence would convince you that evolution is false? If no such evidence exists, or indeed could exist, how can evolution be a testable scientific theory?
Dr. Gary Hurd and Jason Rosenhouse wrote their rebuttals.
Jason made this statement: "Intelligent Design proponents spend most of their time leveling bogus charges against evolution". However, Jason spends his time attacking Dembski and Intelligent Designers and claiming that they do not know what they are talking about. He doesn't attempt to answer the questions at all. It sounds like he is dodging the question.
Dr. Gary Hurd makes this statement: "Scientific Creationism wholeheartedly embraced fundamentalist Christian dogma".
Dr. Gary also spends his time attacking Dembski himself and some of his statements, but avoids and dodges his five questions completely.
It is funny how he attacks people who hold to the Christian dogma, but he doesn't attack himself for holding to his atheistic dogma.
It is quite annoying that they think that their theory has been proven without a doubt and anybody who attempts to discredit it, they attack, call them ignorant, and completely avoids the questions they address.
That fact is that there are many well written papers that discredit evolution. There are also very good reasons not to believe it.
The intelligent design website has a list of some papers here: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/science_3.php
Here is the problem I see. You can go back and forth with these two theories, but who is telling the truth?
These papers attacking Creation Science claims that creationist are nuts. They state that an expert in the field would be able to demonstrate support for their evolutionary theories. But, what if an expert in the field doesn't support their evolutionary theory? Are they going to give the scientist credit? Dr. John Morris is a creationist who is a geologist. Shouldn't he know about dating methods? Of course the evolutionist accuse him of being crazy.
There are creation scientist in all fields of science that are openly or secretly rejecting the theory of evolution.
There are many former evolutionist who have changed their views to creation science.
Dr. AE Wilder-Smith has 3 Doctorates. Is he crazy for not believing in evolution? Why doesn't he get credit?
So, again, why do they dismiss creationist so quickly? All of these scientist get dismissed by evolutionist because they have a "dogma" that they believe in, like the evolutionist don't. I have also noticed that for every article on the web about creationism, there is about 5 articles attacking the creationist. I think that the atheist are really scared because the creationist and intelligent design people are making ground.
I am not a biologist, or a chemist, but I am a computer scientist. What I understand is the complexity of a computer and the extreme complexity of DNA and ultimately the complexity of life. To me, the theory of order coming from chaos doesn't hold water at all. They give their "so called" examples of this happening, but their examples are small, and hard to grasp for me. I mean, for me to be convinced of evolution, I don't want some tiny example, but I want to see something big to be convinced. I want them to create something as complex as a computer by random chance and then I will be convinced. These evolutionist takes this idea for granted and don't even consider it a problem anymore. They barely even argue it anymore. They are more concerned at attacking the creationist. They go after them religiously. Well, maybe that is because they don't like people discrediting their religion. They don't like the idea that people still believe in God. They are still trying to destroy God, but God won't be destroyed that easily. You are really going to have to bring more evidence then the fruit fly, and the IDA fossil to convince me. They claim that the ordinary layman, not being a scientist, are being influenced by the creationist and that is why a recent poll shows that more people believe in creation than evolution. I don't think that is it at all. I think that more and more people realize that random chance doesn't bring life, and this world would be a lot worse if people didn't believe in God.