Idol Chatter

Idol Chatter

Intelligent Design Gets Bad to the Bone

B-B-B-Bad to the Bone.

Rebel truth-seekers vs. complacent status-quo defenders. Free thinkers vs. conformist mind controllers. A fight for good vs. evil, a struggle for the soul of a people. All set to the strains of George Thorogood’s early-80s rebel anthem.
Who are these high-minded rebels, and who are these anti-progress thought suppressers? Partisans vs. Nazis? Revolutionaries vs. Red Coats? Not this movie. In “Expelled,” it’s Intelligent Design adherents vs. the Darwinist scientific establishment–or make that, the Darwinist American establishment.
B-B-B-Bad to the Bone.
Not set for release until February, the buzz campaign has already started for this unabashedly Michael-Moore-style, in-your-face documentary. Narrated by Ben Stein–best known for giving his money away and slowly repeating the name “Bueller” from the front of a classroom to hilarious effect–“Expelled” aims to expose the stifling of debate in this country about the origins of life and make the case for the validity of Intelligent Design.
Yesterday, I attended a presentation to drum up advance support for the film. It was led by Paul Lauer–a Christian marketing maven best known for helping make “Passion of the Christ” the blockbuster it was–and one of the film’s co-producers, a man identified only as Logan, who bore a striking resemblance to Ned Flanders incarnate, albeit tanner (and, being a huge Flanders fan, I mean that as a compliment). The purpose was to win over Christians influential in their communities, to make this a must-see, a film to which they’ll preach about, gab about, and bring their friends, family, churches, non-Christian friends, etc. etc.


B-B-B-Bad to the Bone.
Let the buzz begin. Not that “Expelled’s” intentionally incendiary tone will need much help from the pastors and religious-school teachers in attendance at yesterday’s meeting. From the clips and trailers they showed, the film presents a world of–to use a quote I heard repeatedly yesterday–“the new scientific movement” (Intelligent Design, in case you weren’t sure) vs. the tired, old “theory” of evolution. Relying on news-clip montages, interviews, even cut-away shots of concentration camps, “Expelled” talks of faithful scientists and other believers losing jobs, losing grants, even losing friends in defense of ID. And, relying on footage of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and other atheists du jure, it sets up a worldview of ID vs. atheism, with no gray areas in between.
And, taking it even further, it posits that, without God, there can be no source of morality, no reason not to “stab someone on the subway,” to borrow another phrase I heard a couple of times yesterday (and which explained, according to Lauer and Logan, the concentration camp scenes, since the film will explore the influence of Darwinism on Hitler). So the battle for ID to be taught on par with evolution is no more, no less than a battle for the legitimacy of morality itself.
Admittedly, all of this is culled from a bunch of clips and the verbal description offered by Lauer and Logan. We’ll have to wait until Februrary to see the whole movie and, perhaps just as fun, watch the ID/Evolution battle flair up around it, this time with liberals on the receiving end of a Michael-Moore-style on-screen beating.
In the meantime, need I say it again? Well, maybe one more time.
B-B-B-Bad to the Bone.

  • Anonymous

    What I love about ID people is how stupid their Holocaust statements are. Hitler used evolution? His rant was just as religious — I’m sure many Christians (see: Pope) agreed how evil the Jews were. 😛
    The idea that Darwin begat Hitler ignores the Inquisition, the blaming of Jews for the Black Plague and accusing them of cannibalism — all this hatred stemming from RELIGION before Darwin was a twinkle in God’s eye.
    These people need to get a grip on reality.

  • Donny

    “Free thinkers” and “skeptics” and the enlightened “brights,” as Richard Dawkins likes to pat himself and the elitist tribe on the back with . . . have proven to be the intolerant ones.
    0 x 0 = Darwinistic atheism.
    And that is a mathematical fact.
    Something does not come from nothing. Chaos does not beget order.

  • Ken Herfurth

    Once again, one views the lack of substantive logic from another Darwinist. It is not so much that Darwin “begat’ Hitler, but that Hitler followed a very consistent and logical conclusion if one embraces Darwinism. A notion of survival of the fittest or that man is the measure of all things, to borrow a line from another prominent 1800s philosopher, logically follows that Hitler chose the course he did. It does not mean that another Darwinists cannot be moral and choose a more noble path, and do so logically, but Hitler’s action were consistent with Darwinist philosophy.
    However, one can make a strong, logical argument, that the inquisition was an illogical outworking of Christ’s teachings (and while the Catholic Church erred, one was still better off being tried by the Church than by secular authorities). Religions, in particularly, Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism, have often acted as restraining forces against those of power within them.
    Even Islam’s radical terror platform has done less harm collectively than the Nazi movement or Communist regimes of the last hundred years.

  • Matt

    I have to wonder at the previous post here by Ken Herfurth. He makes many claims and backs none of them up with historical or logical fact himself.
    First of all, he claims Hitler followed a consistent and logical path that was started by Darwinism. Now while Hitler may have been consistent, I wonder at anyone who calls him logical. Secondly, although Darwinism (although it should be more properly noted “social Darwinism”) may have been one influence on Hitler, it was surely not the only influence. And who’s to say that it was the strongest influence? Social Darwinism was something that came along after Darwin. It was just as illogical a conclusion from Darwinism as the crusades are an illogical conclusion of the words of Christ.
    Herfurth mentions Darwin’s philosophy. Darwin did not create a philosophy. Darwin created a scientific theory. Social philosophers came after Darwin and turned biological theory into social philosophy. This does not invalidate any of Darwin’s scientific claims anymore than the crusades invalidates Christ’s teaching of love and peace.
    The Inquisition and other ills were illogical events far removed from Christ’s teaching. However, the Inquisition was not an illogical offshoot of the teachings of Christians. It is a most logical offshoot of those who embrace and unite theological and political totalitarianism.
    Were people still better off being tried by the Church rather than secular authorities? This is a completely ignorant point from a historical point of view. This assumes that there was some difference between the theological and political authorities at this time. Even if you can make a sophistic argument that there was a difference it would only boil down to this: The theological authority tortured you and then handed you over to the political authority to kill you. Since the church and the politicians were working hand in hand and very often the same people, there is no practical difference between church and secular authorities.
    What’s worse, to be tortured or killed?
    To say that religions have done less harm than nazis or communists over the last hundred years is to assume two things. First of all, that nazis and communists are completely anti-faith. Considering that both nazis and communists had state churches, it does not seem that they were entirely anti-faith. Certainly not the nazis who had a strong spiritualist streak. The second assumption has to do with motives. Did the nazi and communist party do harm because of their belief, or supposed lack thereof? Did the christians during the crusades and inquisition do harm because of their belief?
    Nevertheless, it is impossible to determine under what motives anyone has acted because the motives are so varied and perhaps that individual is not even aware of the reasons. Were the crusades a logical progression in christianity during the middle ages, and was the violence perpetrated by crusaders because of their religious beliefs? Doubtless, religion played a part in it. Probably a large part. But there were other factors as well. Lust for power, xenophobia, militarism, political cunning…
    Were the horrors of the communists and nazis perpetrated simply because of a belief in social Darwinism (a completely different creature than Darwin’s Darwinism)? Were the nazis and communists atheists and did they perpetrate evil upon others because of that supposed atheism? Or is it more plausible that there were a variety of factors determining their actions? A variety of philosophies combining to create a worldview? Isn’t it possible that people around the world, people of all faiths and people of no faith, act off of a variety of motives and one of those motives is their faith or lack thereof? Is everything reducible to one simple (or perhaps not so simple) system of philosophy/belief/action?

  • Robin D

    There’s no stifling of debate on human origins in this country- it’s wide open, with every viewpoint out there. All science asks is that claims have evidence to back them up. “Without God, there can be no source of morality” is simply bearing false witness against people who believe differently. It’s not the secular humanists who are suicide bombers – it’s the monotheists. Deuteronomy commands religious persecution – even against your own children- which shows how it’s religion that causes moral relativism, not irreligion. Stalin and Hitler are neither atheists nor theisits – they were totalitarians and in their own league altogether. Darwin had nothing whatsoever to do with the Holocaust – there’s no mention of Jews in his writings. The gospel of Matthew makes the Jews say, “His blood be upon us and upon our children”, which is where persecutions of the Jews began. Martin Luther wanted the Jews persecuted and wiped out. Darwin said nothing on the subject.

  • Lebon

    About Intelligent Design (ID)
    ID is most often and wrongly linked to God and creationism, as opposed to Darwinism and evolutionism. We are there in fact facing an old philosophical problem transposed this time from man to the universe: the difficult and even impossible distinction between what is innate and what is acquired. But the reader of my pages will perhaps agree that evolutionism is not in contradiction with all forms of ID. As a materialist, I think that the confrontation between both concepts is sterile and that a synthesis is even possible.
    If any great complexity of a feature could not exclude evolutionism, science itself could not reject some forms of ID in the evolution of the universe, at least in some steps of the process. After all, man himself is already a local actor in this evolution, an actor showing little intelligence so far (global warming, life sciences …). He could however be led to play a greater and nobler part if he succeeds to survive long enough (dissemination of life in the cosmos, “terraforming” of planets, planetary and even stellar formation, artificial beings…). The development of this kind of “draft ID” could only be limited by our refusal to do so and by our ability to survive. We would be viewed as gods by our ancestors from the middle Ages, and we would also view our descendants as gods if we could return in a few hundreds or thousands years.
    By his refusal to consider that intelligence could already have played a significant part in the evolution of this universe, man takes in fact for granted that he is the most advanced being. It is in fact just another way for placing himself once again in the middle of everything, as for the Earth before Galileo. This anthropocentric view is not very rational.
    Within the frame of evolutionism, the concept of ID could however be applied to the future man if he manages to survive long enough to be able to play a significant part in the evolution of this solar system, in the galaxy, and why not more. And it could also apply to eventual advanced ET preceding man in this cosmic part, advanced ET who could for instance, thanks to their science, have already played a significant part, even if they were themselves born from random processes.
    Without going back to a controversial God, pure intelligence born from random processes is so far too easily ignored in the evolution of this universe, and I think that this choice has more to do with faith in man’s solitude in the universe than with true science. Even if it appears later that the ID concept has yet never been used by other beings in this universe, what could prevent man from applying it in the future? As with the Big Bang, ID would certainly remain in the field of hypotheses, but science progresses that way, and it would not be scientific to exclude one hypothesis that could be quite credible. ID is too easily discarded and laughed at, somewhat like continental drift not long ago, and a lot of other concepts too.
    Benoit Lebon

  • caerbannog

    Hitler drew a lot more inspiration from Martin Luther than he did from Charles Darwin. In fact, Hitler praised Luther by name in “Mein Kampf” (but did not even mention Darwin).
    You can read more about Martin Luther, his antisemitism, and how he inspired the Nazis at:
    If you don’t trust Wikipedia as a source, you can use google to find all sorts of confirmatory information from other sources.
    It is quite troubling to see religious zealots try to pin the moral failings of their own church on the great scientist, devoted husband and loyal family man Charles Darwin.

  • George Lange

    Have you seen website? What is going on????


    Ya’ll have read the wedge strategy, no?
    This whole ID crap is nothing but a strategy by fundamentalist Christians to get religion back in the classroom under the guise of science. ID ain’t science, it’s fundamentalist religious dogma.

  • CK

    Disgusting. The Orwellian tactics of the Biblical Creationists are absolutely shameful. I am a devout Christian and find no conflict between my faith and science, but I find considerable conflict between my faith and the falsehoods that the Creationists try to push on us all. “Intelligent Design” is their latest name for it, but Bible literalism is what it is.

  • Alex

    “Disgusting. The Orwellian tactics of the Biblical Creationists are absolutely shameful. I am a devout Christian and find no conflict between my faith and science, but I find considerable conflict between my faith and the falsehoods that the Creationists try to push on us all. “Intelligent Design” is their latest name for it, but Bible literalism is what it is.”
    Thanks for posting CK. If only more Christians were like you, I wouldn’t be so depressed right now.

  • Sparky

    Actually… I am not sure about this… to some extent doesn’t this lend to the stereotype that ID is simply Creationism?

  • Tamara

    I think it’s excelent having a film that shows the truth. I am a Christian and of course a Creationist, God is the Creator of all things, the Genesis account of Creation is true, we have many books at my work on this very issue written by Scientists who are Creationists. Plus how can you say that you’re a Christian and then deny the truth of the Bible and the literal account of Genesis 1-3 as being true, to do this a person is basically saying that God is a lier, which He isn’t.
    God is an awesome God and nothing is impossible for Him, what He said in His Word, He did and will do.

  • bornagain77

    I would like to dispel the fallacy that Theism is unscientific;
    There are two prevailing philosophies vying for the right to be called the truth in man’s perception of reality. These two prevailing philosophies are Theism and Materialism. Materialism is sometimes called philosophical or methodological naturalism. Materialism is the current hypothesis entrenched over science as the nt hypothesis guiding scientists. Materialism asserts that everything that exists arose from chance acting on an material basis which has always existed. Whereas, Theism asserts everything that exists arose from the purposeful will of the spirit of Almighty God who has always existed in a timeless eternity. A hypothesis in science is suppose to give proper guidance to scientists and make, somewhat, accurate predictions. In this primary endeavor, for a hypothesis, Materialism has failed miserably. It will be my goal in this paper to briefly show where Materialism has led scientists down blind alleys in the past and then it will be my goal to show where Materialism may currently be tying science up in an unnecessary problem. First, lets take a look at a few of the predictions where Materialism has missed the mark and Theism has been accurate.
    1. Materialism did not predict the big bang. Yet Theism always said the universe was created.
    2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space.
    3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.
    4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, which allows life as we know it to be possible. Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning, unchanging, clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism.
    5 Materialism predicted that complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Yet statistical analysis of the many required parameters that enable complex life to be possible on earth reveals that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support complex life in this universe. Theism would have expected the earth to be extremely unique in this universe in its ability to support complex life.
    6. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code.
    7. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what most likely is, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA.
    8. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity for the “simplest” life on earth.
    9. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Yet we find evidence for “complex” photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Nov. 7, 1996, study in Nature). Theism would have naturally expected this sudden appearance of life on earth.
    10. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Yet Theism would have naturally expected such sudden appearance of the many different and completely unique fossils in the Cambrian explosion.
    11. Materialism predicted that there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record. Yet fossils are characterized by sudden appearance in the fossil record and overall stability as long as they stay in the fossil record. There is not one clear example of unambiguous transition between major species out of millions of collected fossils. Theism would have naturally expected fossils to suddenly appear in the fossil record with stability afterwards as well as no evidence of transmutation into radically new forms.
    I could probably go a lot further for the evidence is extensive and crushing against the Materialistic philosophy. As stated before, an overriding hypothesis in science, such as Materialism currently is, is suppose to give correct guidance to scientists. Materialism has failed miserably in its predictive power for science. The hypothesis with the strongest predictive power in science is “suppose” to be the prevailing philosophy of science. That philosophy should be Theism. Why this shift in science has not yet occurred is a mystery that needs to be remedied to enable new, and potentially wonderful, breakthroughs in science.

  • Doug

    I can’t help but wonder at this whole approach. Trying to challenge an established scientific theory through high school students?
    History and science are replete with examples of new or improved scientific theories replacing or amending the old ones: relativity, the big bang and plate tectonics, to name a few recent ones. Yet I can’t think of one example where scientists tried to sell their idea to young adults instead of proving the theory to peers. Isn’t this exactly why the scientific community has respected, peer reviewed journals, and conferences? If you have something scientifically substantial, why can’t it withstand scrutiny from the professionals? Conspiracy? If so, why? The scientist who could radically change the theory of evolution, let alone disprove it, would likely become the most famous scientist of the 21st century.
    Conservative religious groups are never far behind this drumbeat of “intelligent design,” although they try to separate themselves from their more conservative “creationist” forefathers. I can’t help but see this as an attempt at religious indoctrination. If it were good science they would be trying to convince real scientists with data and actual proof.

  • Alcibiades

    Bornagain77 starts out trying to support the notion that theism is scientific, and then offers a mishmash of falsehoods misrepresentations and confused thinkng.
    He starts out confusion metaphysical and methological materialism, applying the one not involved in science (metaphysical) and then tries fatuously to suggest that theism somehow predicted findings totally unrelated.
    The fact is that science uses the assumption of methodological materialism (or naturalism) which is simply that you can’t learn any data or facts from the world unless there is observation to back it us. Theism offers the reverse proposition whose only merit comes from the fact that one can’t prove the unobservable (like gods) don’t exist. That’s true, but useless.
    The only useful observations and facts derive from what we can observe. There may be things we can’t observe, but since we can’t observe them, there’s nothing we can learn about them. So for all practical (but not metaphysical) purposes, they don’t exists.
    For the rest of the drivel, some familiarity with science an the ability to see that irrelevant arguments to not make something to take seriously.

  • steven carr

    The film will explore the influence of Darwinism on Hitler?
    Hitler never once mentioned Darwin, Darwinism or natural selection.
    Hitler did say the following though (as recorded in Hitler’s Table Talk)
    ‘Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.’

  • Ken Herfurth

    Matt-First, Darwin created a naturalistic philosophy based on observation, but it was not completely scientific. If it was completely scientific, it would have to be only those things that are testable and repeatable. I say this as one who has no problems with evolutionary theory or ID per se. However, my argument stands well that Hitler was consistent with a Darwinian view of life – Survival of the fittest. Hitler may have perverted it, but it was still logical. Also, don’t confuse one because he or she is evil as completely illogical. That is a category fallacy my dear friend.
    Hitler was also influenced by FN, so much he gave a copy of his works to Stalin. While again, one can argue FN would be appalled, if man is the measure of all things, one may logically ask (as obviously Hitler must have) which man? It was consistent.
    As far as Church state, etc., that you posit, I do not disagree. It is often complicated, But I’m responding to this first post:
    What I love about ID people is how stupid their Holocaust statements are. Hitler used evolution? His rant was just as religious — I’m sure many Christians (see: Pope) agreed how evil the Jews were. 😛
    The idea that Darwin begat Hitler ignores the Inquisition, the blaming of Jews for the Black Plague and accusing them of cannibalism — all this hatred stemming from RELIGION before Darwin was a twinkle in God’s eye.
    These people need to get a grip on reality.
    I’m not writing a book, but challenging the brief and anyonomous first post regarding the blog – context is everything. Thanks – Ken

  • Jeff

    I for one am looking forward to this film. Is there a bias among scientist concerning the subject of origins and the development of life? Absolutely. There is a clear unwarranted bias, and it appears from the movie trailer that this film is going to expose this bias. Peer review? Are you kidding. ID discoveries and scientific principals have been published in peer review scientific journels numerous times only to recieve mixed reviews. Why mixed reviews? Answer: The bias. Peer review breaks down and becomes ineffective when an unscientific bias is present. So, why not present the facts to the general public in a movie? I would the like to hear from the scientist that have been discriminated against on the grounds of a prevailing bias toward Darwnism resulting in hostility toward any scientific evidence that brings Darwanism into question. The question of origins and the development of life should not be reserved only for the few elite egomaniacs who look down their noses at everyone else, but should be studied and reflected upon by the general public. I really am looking forward to this film!!

  • Gary

    Darwinism is a very mixed bag – the good (micro), the bad, and the fraudulent: (Peppered moths on trees, Haeckel’s embryos , fish to lizards, Piltdown man among many, many others). The impossibility of random chance + time = complexity of life can be demonstrated in so many ways that it is amazing anyone continues to spout this crap. Just take one example. Reproduction is the very cornerstone of evolution. Without reproduction, NOTHING can evolve. Would any of you Darwinists care to dissent? Yet SINGLE CELL reproduction is exceedingly COMPLEX (whether mitosis or meiosis) requiring up to six separate stages – each stage requiring numerous processes to occur in just the right order.
    Now, you Darwinian fundamentalists, since Darwin posited that somehow “life began” (abiogenesis) in a “warm little pond”, ummm, what happened next? C’mon now. That’s right, the “life” dies. Unless the reproductive process itself evolved. Except that reproduction is the cornerstone of evolution. Oh, crap!
    Honestly, we need this movie to open the debate so ruthlessly suppressed by Darwinian fundamentalists.

  • onein6billion

    “we need this movie to open the debate”
    The political debate has been going on for 150+ years.
    There’s nothing new in this “mockumentary” – it’s just a very biased piece of political propaganda.

  • Rob

    Supernaturalists just can’t seem to get over the fact that there is NO (zero, zip, nil, nada,,,etc) evidence that a supernatural being exists. They continue to “evolve” their religion to fit science, but usually a few hundred years later.
    As for evolution, that life on Earth started about 3.5 billion years ago and has EVOLVED from simple forms to complexity, ITS A FACT, supported by 200 years of scientific observations.
    Darwin’s theory of how this happens, also supported by massive amounts of evidence, is the best fit we have.
    It’s amazing anyone continues to spout this crap about a supernatural being. Get over it guys, there is no such thing, and it’s obvious to anyone who opens their mind to reality.

  • Not Your Type

    Yes, let’s go see poor Guillermo Gonzalez, who was denied tenure because of his deeply held beliefs. Of course, the fact that he didn’t publish, hardly worked, and couldn’t get a grant to save his life had nothing to do with it. And how about that poor Caroline Crocker, whose contract was not renewed after she started taking up class time with her own personal rants instead of teaching the subject she was being paid to teach. What a poster child for religious persecution!
    And how can this movie fail to be anything but a raging box office success, when the target audience is being bribed, excuse me, is being offered discounts and rebates to see it? Classics like this just don’t come along every day!

  • Luquet

    No Creator? Nothing Supernatural? Nothing greater than what is? Did evolution create itself, gravity, laws of nature? Just as the 1st particle in the “big bang” was created so wonderfully by the embodiment of all G-o-o-d, God, created the forces of evolution that caused the big bang to become what is and what is going to be. How awesome is it that what we did not know and thought of as miracles is God’s way of allowing us to beautifully come to know what he did in His very natural way? Unfortunately, the more we discover, and the more we know of his vey natural ways, we think less of these actions as being awesome and creative. As we discover the ways that He created, we think less of the creation. Therein lies the simpler thoughts of our ability to have free will.
    When we die, we’ll be availed to all of the wonders of his creation. At the time when we see Him, we will then evalute and hopefully not regret a mistake of not giving him praise for creation in its simplist aspects. It will be then when we evaluate our free will and whether we enjoyed the good we were exposed to and fostered it or wrote it off to nothing spectactular.
    The lesson that we should not miss is why this creation? When He explains that, we will then evaluate how our free will allowed LOVE to be received, understood, evolved, or cultervated and shared.
    Evolution always points to a source. We must have the will to want to know that source.



  • onein6billion

    Good for him. It seems likely that he will actually learn some chemistry and physics. Then he will learn how mistaken your nonsensical beliefs really are.

  • Anonymous

    For me it is much easier to “believe” in I.D. than it is in “Darwinism”. There are far fewer problems. There is no way to prove either ID or Darwinism using the scientific method since neither can be experimentally recreated in a laboratory.

  • onein6billion

    “since neither can be experimentally recreated in a laboratory.”
    You have a much too limited view of the nature of “science”.

  • Pharmf5

    Hello! faafdde interesting faafdde site!

Previous Posts

Happiness Is What God Wants For You
When you think of God do you imagine Him as happy? Many believers struggle with this idea of divine happiness because they see God through the lens of His anger toward sin. Author, theologian, and founder of Eternal Perspective Ministries, Randy ...

posted 9:00:16am Oct. 01, 2015 | read full post »

What Drives John Schneider? Redemption “It's not what you drive--it's what drives you,” is a line from John Schneider’s film “Adrenaline.”  The words are fitting for the award-winning actor with 35 years in show business. What ...

posted 10:26:48am Sep. 30, 2015 | read full post »

'Hotel Transylvania 2' Pushes Animation Style The animators of Hotel Transylvania 2 were not happy using a computer software program so they expanded the possibilities by streamlining a way clothes and the hair of the character’s were the ...

posted 10:31:07am Sep. 25, 2015 | read full post »

Baseball Great Yogi Berra Dies at 90
Yogi Berra, one of the most talented catchers in baseball history died Tuesday night at the age of 90. Berra was one of the greatest to ever ball the game of baseball and often mesmerized people with his humorous malapropisms that were referred ...

posted 8:59:22am Sep. 23, 2015 | read full post »

Finding Noah: More Than Your Average Exploration
[youtube][/youtube]The ultimate resting place for the infamous Noah's Ark has been a mystery for over 2,000 years. Now director/producer Brent Baum is taking the expedition onto the big screen with Finding Noah. Baum ...

posted 1:40:55pm Sep. 22, 2015 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.