He refers to the "Darwinist establishment" that rejects any theistic explanation for any of the inexplicable mysteries of the universe
Gadianton wrote:Yes, exactly Moniker. Maybe it was a political philosophy class? But even then, I have a hard time imagining his situation
Now, what I have a very "easy" time imagining, is a Mormon thinking they are being discriminated against when in reality, the nature of the subject matter is unfortunately, not straight out of a Sunday School manual.
I remember a long time ago my dad telling me about this philosophy class he took where his teacher taught all kinds of stuff against the gospel and how he eventually had to bear testimony in front of the class and let his professor know *his* beliefs. I remember him telling this story on a few different occasions when I was a teenager. He got me interested at some point, and I just had to know what all these dark and treacherous ideas were his teacher was forcing on the class, and he told me he had the book for the class somewhere and would try to find it. Well, he found it. Guess what it was?
Will Durrant's "The Story of Philosophy"! lol
I had a mission comp too who was an utter fanatic, I was an inch away from demanding another comp or i'd just quit working. I got along very well with virtually anyone, and I'm not the only one who had a problem with this guy. He was a southerner, and as dogmatic as they come. I met him years after mission, and he mentioned a philosophy class he took that he was thrown out of. Just your general intro class, and he'd get up and tell the teacher he was wrong and bear testimony.
Some Mormons have a hard time separating the two worlds they live in.
Gadianton wrote:He refers to the "Darwinist establishment" that rejects any theistic explanation for any of the inexplicable mysteries of the universe
Can you give us the theistic explanation for gravity? I'm dying. I mean, I'm aware of one explanationg from the middle ages but what's the modern Christian view?
Is it the same as the theistic explanation of complex life?
(God did it!)
I quoted what he did say in the OP: "Darwinism can not explain gravity."
It is a very beautiful documentary and it's about the struggle between the Darwinist establishment that has a hammer lock on all the educational processes and the people who think that maybe intelligent design, the idea that there was an intelligent creator should get its day in the classroom or its day somewhere, laboratory or somewhere so we can have some idea of whether possibly life at some other origin than nothing. I mean, [i]we basically say it's very hard to believe that something came from nothing[i] and that we don't understand that where gravity came from, we don't understand where the laws of physics or thermodynamics or fluid motion came from, we don't understand how life came from a mud puddle when there was one that was mud and the next day there was life and then a few billion years later there was man. How did that happen? No Darwinist has ever been able to come close to an explanation...
We should all be asking where did -- we should all be asking, one, where did life come from. Two, is it possible that life is so complex that it could have come from something other than just nothing. Three, is it conceivably possible that these organizing principles of the universe could have just come up randomly and that gravity and fluid motion and thermodynamics and so forth could have just come up by total random? It seems farfetched to us but maybe it happened in some way that we don't understand but it does seem extremely farfetched.
I understand that the comments on gravity, thermodynamics, and abiogenesis don't relate to Darwinism and he's creating strawmen.
He's criticizing a particular scientific theory and saying that it can't do what it was never intended to do.
I actually think Stein doesn't think evolution has anything to do with gravity, yet, his statements are ridiculous on the matter.
Instead of tackling evolution and pushing forward an alternative theory he is the one creating strawmen.
Can you give us the theistic explanation for gravity? I'm dying. I mean, I'm aware of one explanjation from the middle ages but what's the modern Christian view? Is it the same as the theistic explanation of complex life?
Intro from Beck: You are like the smartest guy I know.
Stein: No I'm not. I'm very stupid compared to you.
Beck: Yah right.
Stein: I am.
Beck: Alright let me just, 'cause I watched this movie last night and America let me tell you something go see this move it's in theatres now
if you have a daughter or a son like I do that is going to college and blood is about to shoot out of your eyes go see it. The new York Times says if I may quote.
Stein:I'd rather you didn't but it will probably make me sick on the air, but go ahead.
~ Beck reads review from new York Times~
Beck: Let me tell you something, if you're a believer in God you've gotta go, get your Church together and go see this movie, you'll cheer. You're saying you're getting standing ovations.
~Discussion about crowd cheering, people coming back to see it. Family in small town traveling distances. ~
~Clip of interview with Dawkins and voice over with Stein~
Beck: But you're crazy to say it's God.
Stein: Heavy, heavy heavy.Yes, you can say it's anything you want, men from outer space, martians, anything you want, but not god, can not be god. It's not allowed to be God.
Beck: Right.
Beck: Tell me about him.
~talk about looks and smart guy, self confident, thinks he knows a lot more than he does~
2:50
Darwinism can not explain gravity, can not explain thermodynamics, most of all it can not explain how life began. And that's what we're trying to get into the movie. How did life begin and why should we close our eyes to the possibility that God did it that there's an intelligent creator and his name is G.O.D.
Beck: yep. It maybe its ~not certain what he's saying here ~ to see the arrogance and honestly the misery that these people live in.
Stein: I think they live in a little teeny box, they're surrounded by a little teeny box that protects themselves in their theory they can not look outside that box for the giant spaciousness of time and the giant spaciousness of God. And that makes me feel bad for them. They're famous in their circles but they don't have God in their lives and that makes me sad for them.
Beck: They are they are so close minded and it was It really I got the feeling from the movie that it is really not about science.
Stein: No, it's about them.
Beck: It is anti-god. They can not allow God to be a part of anything.
Stein: Right because if there is a god then they might be judged. If there's a god that holds you accountable for your actions you're in a lot of trouble. Now I I the first to agree I'm in a lot of trouble too. But they can not admit there's a possibility of sin or a possibility of morality and they can't agree on this basic thing if man is just a speck of dust struck by lightning and then turned into a human being then he has no moral responsibility. If we're all children of God we have some moral responsibility because we all have this little piece of God in us. That scares them to death.
~Wrap up. ~
I quoted what he did say in the OP: "Darwinism can not explain gravity."
But that isn't what he said, so you're dealing with a straw man. The interview can be read here: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articl ... /196/8621/
Stein mentions gravity only twice, and in neither instance does it appear in the phrase you say you have accurately "quoted." Here is the context:
Stein's point is that these laws didn't just come from nothing. And yes, it is true that atheists do not have answers for any of this other than to say it was just "random chance" that these laws fell into place the way they did.
Moreover, modern "Darwinists," sometimes called the "New Darwinists," like Richard Dawkins, are career atheists who tackle much more than just evolution. And as I said before, they are not true Darwinists since Darwin would not have aligned himself with any of them. Darwin was a theist who believed evolution was an act of God, and that it could not explain all that we know about life.
I understand that the comments on gravity, thermodynamics, and abiogenesis don't relate to Darwinism and he's creating strawmen.
No he isn't. You think this because you're misrepresenting what he actually said.
He's criticizing a particular scientific theory and saying that it can't do what it was never intended to do.
No he isn't. Again, you don't understand his argument.
I actually think Stein doesn't think evolution has anything to do with gravity, yet, his statements are ridiculous on the matter.
So you admit you're attacking a straw man. You admit he doesn't really believe this, but you want to chide him for it anyway. Well, have fun.
Instead of tackling evolution and pushing forward an alternative theory he is the one creating strawmen.
His main fight is in the battle between atheism and theism. Evolution doesn't do anything to disprove God's existence. Stein's gripe is that theists are shunned in the classroom. People who dare express a theory about God are automatically characterized as an ID apologist and dealt with accordingly. Any alternative view that doesn't comply with the new establishment, is generally treated with contempt and ridicule. That isn't science. In fact, this is what one would expect from a religious organization when views contrary to the established consensus are expressed.
Darwinism can't explain gravity, it cannot explain thermodynamics, most of all it cannot explain how life began.