There is a new documentary coming out called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." It basically is an indictment on the scientific community for treating anyone who might dare whisper the words "intelligent design" like a homosexual or Jew in Nazi Germany.

Yea, the Nazi thing is a cheap shot, but it’s brief and an attention grabber - I am lazy.

A few thoughts on this subject ...

Whenever someone speaks with bated breath on "science" and "scientists" I just roll my eyes. These are people too. They need money and want attention. I remember back when Bill Mahr had his network show, Don Henley was a guest. To defend a point he was making about the environment he said something along the lines of all scientists are totally objective and have no point of view they are pushing.

Oy.

It is hard to be a scientist. If you aren’t developing the latest pharmaceutical money maker than you need grants and other moneys for research. How does one get that? Well, "the squeaky wheal gets the grease." If the world is going to die tomorrow and you can stop it if only you get a billion dollars for research today, you are far more likely to get a billion dollars. Not to say these folks are motivated primarily by money, but they have families to fee too.

Then there is the ego. Have you ever met a research scientist? These are not necessarily the most humble people in the world. They are smart, the have proven it and they know it. And have you ever actually read a peer-review journal? They can really tear the living daylights out of each other and each other’s research, conclusions, etc... There is a lot o f people out there whose goal in a given study is to disprove someone else’s. This doesn’t even include the occasional news-making frauds. This also doesn’t include the news-making "breakthroughs", very often in origin sciences, that are simply proven wrong and retracted within a couple months or years of them being in the paper. Of course the updated research never sees the light of day in the same news outlets that put out the first story.

We consistently see how shocked scientists are the more they discover. It is because they do, in fact, have an a priori they start with. When the evidence doesn’t confirm that point of view - they are shocked. The relatively open-minded ones accept the facts, but rarely does it make a dent in the a priori.

On the other hand, there are some scientists that have come to a religious conversion as a result of their scientific inquiry. The evidence for a Creator was simply too much for them to ignore. Then there are those folks like the very famous Richard Dawkins whose arrogance simply will never allow them to ever accept even the most remote possibility that there is God. At least these folks would never say it out loud.

That is not science. That is close-minded religion. You can call it atheism, but it is religion. You worship humanity and self. You have dictums.

Are creation scientists and IDers any less close minded? I am bias, but I think they are more open-minded. Obviously, I am one of them (creationist). So if you want to simply throw out my opinion, that is your liberty. I can see why there are people who simply do not want to acknowledge the existence of a divine Creator. I also see why people fear those with that point of view. In the history of man, religion has been used as a battle axe. (That is a whole ‘nother entry)

But true, open-minded creationists will not be dogmatic. They, like me, are perfectly willing to be wrong. But when a creationist points to an invalid point made by evolutionists and says it is evidence - NOT PROOF - that we are here by the miracle of an intelligent God, we get made fun of. "It must be magic," is how John Stewart of the Daily Show put it.

But when an evolutionist is wrong about something that would appear to then point towards the creationist point of view - well, we just don’t know enough yet. But the more we know, the more the Biblical point of view is actually confirmed.

I will give more details in a future post. I just bet you can’t wait!