Science and Society

Ben Stein:
"based on the little I know"

And yet he expects that people take him seriously?

As the Bible says, "In the beginning God..." That's a declarative statement. It's not theory. God was there at the beginning and it was He that created all that is. This God of all creation isn't going to debate the fact that it was He who created the species with the pseudo-intelligensia. He knows. He was there. They only conjecture. And their conjectures are based on faulty and partial knowledge. "God is dead." - Darwin. "Darwin is dead." - God.

the bible also says god created man then woman...a couple of paragraphs later it goes on to say that god created man, THEN ANIMAL, then woman... which is it...and the real kicker...the bible also says that the world is only 10,000 years old...explain that one petee

Ned, it never turns out the way you think it will, does it? You drop a pebble into a pond, and instant tsunami. Although, from a distance, it's kind of interesting in an anthropological way.

GODISNOTREAL: The Bible also says "The fool says in his heart there is no God." It also says, "Answer not a fool according to his folly." Therefore, don't be holding your breath waiting for an answer.

NED...Ned! Don't bait those folks. How about the partial collapse of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in the past week or so. Or, what about this? I read in the April issue of a popular science magazine that I can inject a little r-EPO under the skin and increase the number of red blood cells in my system. As a result, I can increase my racing times. Now, that's useful science! Also, aren't the Kyoto folks meeting this week? What new ideas do they have?

"I would say, based on the little I know, Darwinism explains microevolution within species quite well. As to its broader consequence and implications, I don’t think it explains individual species evolution at all well."

I would say, based on what I do know that Ben Stein needs to study a little bit more.

Jim:
"Don't bait those folks. How about the partial collapse of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in the past week or so."

Funny you mention that. On another forum a conspirancy theorist said with a straight face that that was done with high tech, space based lasers to maintain the global warming hype, which in turn is a scheme of the New World Order for some reason.

Funniest thing I've read this week :P

Ben Stein, I guarantee you that you also have a lot of new friends, maybe even more than before and maybe even better friends than before.

Poor ben has lost his money and his mind. He can now go away, this is a silly stroy that has no base to stand on. To have faith is one thing, to go off the deep end and think that god made all of this what we call earth, well then....... i think any educated person would have to let Ben know please retire, go away and give it up. There is no god, it just people's fear of the unknonwn hense the bible, a big book most people couldn't read back in the day that told stories on how to live your life, in some what peace. Man there are some crazies out there.

The bible is contradictory and it is high time we drop it. It was created by man from oral stories passed down the generations. Not saying some of what is saying isnt true but something got garbled along the way. And today's bible was also a collection chosen by man of the existing biblical stories. So...since man is fallible is it not at least possible that the bible is messed up? And as to the evolutionary theory why couldn't god create man and the animals by guiding the evolutionary process? People you keep persisting to thinking in terms of black and white while the likely truth lies in the gray. Just think for yourselves. It is NOT A CRIME. Galileo once said (or something close to it), "I cannot be obliged to believe that the same God that endowed us with sense and intellect intended us to forgo their use". So think. I dont blame anybody for thinking. I blame people for blindly following.

Please let's move past this. Neither side is likely to convince the other. I'm a medical researcher and a creationist. Some of you either believe there is no God or that He would give us His book but allow it to be filled with errors, thus clouding His messsage. I believe God is smarter than I and that He would not give me his word shrouded in error. Ben is entitled to his view as the other side is to its. Just deal with it.

Good grief did you not understand my post Ron? God didn't make the bible. Man did. Certainly they tried to write down his word but over the course of history that has gotten mushed up. God isn't responsible for hand feeding you the information. He gave us free will. So you expect me to believe he himself wrote the bible single-handedly or forced man to write it down exactly as he said thus negating free will? Once again I dont blame people for thinking and coming up with an answer opposite to mine. It's great. It shows that people are willing to think. I do blame people for blindly following a certain path without thought. Personally I would be willing to drop this whole thing and let bygones be bygones but certain people on both sides of the issue are intent on forcing people to adhere to their views. That just isnt right. Which is why I am posting. Trying to get people to actually think about the issue rather than have a knee-jerk reaction about it.

Ron Bude: excellent comment, I couldn't agree more. By the way, I'm a professional programmer and an amateur physicist. I see no conflict between the Bible and the logic necessary to do my job: I use BOTH daily. A long time ago (when I was kid), I was told that the fundamental particles of matter were proton, neutron, and electron. This "fact" has been revised any number of times since then. Call it human weakness, but I am curious to know a few more details about creation, but it's not a particulary burning question. I'll wait and get the answers from The Author.

*** "Some of you either believe there is no God or that He would give us His book but allow it to be filled with errors, thus clouding His messsage. I believe God is smarter than I and that He would not give me his word shrouded in error."

The errors do not cloud God's message.

The errors of fact that are indeed in the Bible only cloud the message when the words are more important than their meaning. I believe God is smart enough to understand how it is possible to teach valuable lessons because those errors are there.

Faith in God and the meaning of what God is trying to teach us is infinitely more important than a blind myopic trust in the words of a book written by humans after hundreds of years of verbal history, translated by humans, re-translated humans, re-translated by humans again in some cases, and then iterpreted by humans. The meaning of God's messages is more important than the words in a book.

PQQAm - why don't you contact Ben about your fire-breathing dragon theory? I'm sure he'd love to hear all about it.

Also, the Bible is merely the starting point to begin understanding. It is not the end point or the totality of knowledge.

PQQAm's fire-breathing dragon theory is really not even a theory. It is merely an hypothesis, and an untestable one at that.

One can not either prove nor disprove the existance of God. It is an age old question that simply has no answer. The worship of the bible is another thing entirely. If you wish to place an old book on a pedistal and pray to it, go ahead, but please do not expect to be taken seriously.

Andy, I think it's more sand grain in the Pacific. But it's all the same anyway. Religion and science don't mix well together, kind of like oil and water. Some people can do it well, others hate the thought of it. The latter is becoming more prevalent, or at least it seems this way. Or, it's just people wanting to push their views onto other people, forcing them to see things the same way. Like wanting ID taught in school, and evolution to not be taught, or covered up by fancy words. My point is, ID is religion based and backed up. There has been no science to back it up that has withstood scientific scrutiny, by multiple scientists. Therefore, it is still religiosly based and needs to be thought of that way. So that means it should stay out of government, and public schools and any government run event, etc. Our Constitution says so. If you want your children to learn of it, be what you are supposed to be, a parent, and teach it to your children yourselves. Stop being lazy and expecting the government to teach it for you, as they're not allowed to teach it.

Just fodder for contemplation: That portion of the Bible that deals with creation was written by fairly uneducated and naive sheep herders whose grasp of physics, elemental partical theory (etc.) was, to put it mildly, limited. If God did indeed "dictate" Genesis to them, do you not think he would have used concepts that they would be able to understand? If you don't think he would, I invite you to explain stator-ring acceleration in detail to a two-year old; let me know how it works out.

If, on the other hand, you are willing to accept that Genesis might have been written using language that was readily understood by those for whom it was originally intended, a couple of things become possible. First, the concept of a "day" could have been used to represent a MUCH longer time period, one that might have been incomprehensible to simpe herdsmen - such as millions of years. Second, look at the order in which things were created; it bears a striking resemblance to the the order in which evolution says it happened. Interesting, no?

From my perspective, it would seem that there is no real discrepancy between Genesis and evolution. Much of the controversy seems to hinge on whether the "day" set down therein is equal to the day as we now know it. I freely admit that I don't know for certain one way or the other, but I believe it was not, for the reasons noted above.

And, how did the Creator actually create? Could the Creator not have established laws under which the universe would operate, and then simply let the system work? It would still be creation. Aren't those who say, "It can't be so!" making an awfully big assumption? They are not in effect saying, "God could not and did not do it this way!"? I cannot speak for others, but I am totally unwilling to place limits upon an entity that is capable of creating the entire universe as we know it. Such an entity by definition has to have powers beyond our imagining.

Once again, just concepts to contemplate. The logical portion of my brain (if such actually exists - I have doubts from time to time) insists that these concepts are both possible and probable. If the world is less than 10,000 years old, as my Rabbi says, then why does it contain fossils that date back millions of years? Did God scatter these around as a "test" for the faithful? A Creator who would play tricks like that on his children should be spanked and sent to bed without supper; it would be a mean and spiteful thing to do. The more palatable choice is the one offered herein: Genesis was written in language that could be understood by its audience, and is not in any way in conflict with any scientific view of evolution.

Walker, that is a well thought out response. You are not alone in your thinking. I think the same way. I just wish others were as accepting.

Greetings,
I once was an evolutionist and believed in millions of years of development. The educational system gave me no other choice. Then I started question the claims of evolution. First I found out that not all scientist support or believe evolution. I even found evolutionists that did not believe in evolution. That was weird. Then I start finding that many of the claims of evolution being taught to day have already been disproven. If you keep reading you will find out the Darwin was a racist to the core, and his theories support racism, hatred, and genocide for the lesser races. Yet we science we find that there are no races but one, the human race. There skin differences, and feature diffences, but these do no define races. In the genome project, it has been settled that all of us humans, are just one human race, with the same roots. That science alone should crush the Darwin doctrine. If you keep questioning what you were taught, you find out you were not told the whole story.When Heckel (SP) was creating is theroy of evolution in the womb the current scientist already new he was wrong back then. The false doctrine, and altered pictures have been shown as fake, yet this is still taught in schools, and other gov't support institutions. You will also find out the fossil record does do support evolution and does not show animals evolving. Some honorable evolutionist with even admit this. As you keep reading you find you have not been told a lot about what is assumed, interpreted and told to you as fact. A similar tactic has been used to attack the Bible. They say it is stories and full of errors. I heard those also. But when I started to look into these claims, even down to the Greek and Hebrew, I could not find the errors. I could only find a precise, well written trustable account of things. I found something that I could not prove false, or could not explain away. I moved from the religion and belief system of a racist error-riddled humanistic evolution, to a more scientific, error free, belief system, and the Creator of all things. I found evolution riddles with hate, lies, envy, and lacking any morals. I found hope, peace, and joy in the one the provides answers, forgiveness. Question what you believe and why you believe it. Test it, prove it, or dump it. I am a happier and better man for it.

How about this? Life is too short to get all excited about things you don't understand. Try to live a long, happy life, and be content. That's all I do. I'm sure when I pass I'll either have a greater understanding of the universe, or I'll not have enough conscience energy to care. End of debate. Next story...

PQQAm's fire-breathing dragon theory is really not even a theory. It is merely an hypothesis, and an untestable one at that.

B K: My comment was made with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Calling it a hypothesis is a much more generous term than I had in mind.

I thought Ben Stein was an economist, not a biologist? I'll pass on "what little he knows" and take my science from actual scientists, not wannabes. Thanks!

Good grief, txs_ranger, you didn't understand my post. I believe there is a God. Therefore I believe the bible is His word, not man's. That's what it says, that's what I believe. There are two camps here, and they all center on whether there is a God or not. Neither of us can prove the other wrong and that's where we have to leave it. But I expect, and deserve, the same level of understanding and respect that I am giving you.

Why does God have to just go 'POOF' and make man 10,000 years ago?

Can't he be powerful enough to work his will through evolution? Isn't that a more powerful God?--one that can sit back 10 BILLION years ago (more actually) and design things to come together at a certain point in a certain way?

It is amazing how certain fundamentalists are in their beliefs. Ultimately, their views are almost in lock-step with Muslim fundamentalists.

Ben Stein started his project with lies, based his project on lies, and advertises and hypes his project with lies. He's not only stupid, he's dishonest.

And WDJ, don't quote the bible at me. I've read it through at least seven times and can tell you that it's internal contradictions make Stein look brilliant... You are not going to convince anyone with the words of iron age shepherds who knew nothing of science or (based on their god in the bible) morality.

When I was a kid in Catholic School it was pretty much taught that we could reconcile Darwinism with the Bible as long as we understood that Genesis was written by men in a deeply metaphorical language and not to be taken literally. After all, Darwin himself was a devout Christian and believed that evolution was just the unfolding of God's plan. Have we regressed so much that we expect a book written by men to be the literal truth and not an imperfect attempt to understand the nature of the divine? Why can we accept the Jesus used the launguage of metaphor in his parables, but not accept that the story of Genesis was also written in the methaphoric language of parable? After all, who was around to write down the story of Adam and Eve? Are we really expected to take this is as a literal, eyewitness account? Has everyone gone insane?

I Dare you to watch the movie. I can go to this movie with an open mind. I'm not even sure exactly where Ben stands on this issue. But I can check it out. Are you man enough or Woman enough to challenge what you believe?
Question what you believe and why you believe it. Test it, prove it, or dump it, but don't just believe something because you were taught it over and over and over again with little or no option and told what to believe. Be a rebel, take a chance, I dare you........ :)
See you there....

Mr Stien is right. As a good christian as I am sure that he is, he realises the God created everying in 6 days. People who refute this are only advocating Satanism.

The silly aspect is that there is plenty of room for both science and religion, it's just the silly dogmatic approach that both sides seem to take.

petee
No...most mens interpetation of the Bible is that the world is only 10,000 years old....probably not Gods interpetation....In the beggining God created the heavens and the earth....Now the world was formless.....I've always been puzzeled by the word "NOW" it indicates a space or elapse of time

Soccermom - um, Ben Stein is Jewish.

THIS IS A POORLY WRITTEN ARTICLE. IS THERE A CONTROVSERSY? TOO MUCH DIALOGUE WITH VERY LITTLE SUBSTANCE.

JWM, which version of the bible are you putting your trust in?

There are literally hundreds of versions, with slightly different "translations" throughout the world.

One bible says "Thou shalt not Kill" another says "Thou shalt not Murder" 2 very different and distinct meanings.

Which one is right?

Am I to believe God intended me to be a Vegan or did he simply mean I can't kill other people?

It depends who you ask. (I like beef, so you know which one I'm going with)

The words you choose to believe are inerrant have been changed, repeatedly, over a couple thousand years (mostly in the last few hundred). Sometimes by the church, sometimes by a king, other times by the people charged with making exact copies (accidentally writing in a margin note as part of a passage).

It happens, and because man is fallible, so to are mans works. God does not seem to be in the business of editing paperbacks, (although His creations have gone through some extensive revisions over the last few billion years) and until He does, we're just stuck with an approximations of His words.

Ben Stein is my hero. Even if he is wrong about Darwinism, he is smarter than all of the posters here put together.

Hey, evolution is just a theory, right? Just like gravity!

No one in the sceintific community has EVER said that evolution is a fact, but it is supported by many, many facts. Unlike the existince of, oh say, GOD.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, "Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time."

Hooray to Mr. Stein! I'm glad someone had the courage to publicly denounce the faulty "Theory" that is evolution. Unfortunately kids across our great nation are being taught they evolved from a rock.

petee: The Bible was written by people. This is indisputable. Whether or not it has been inspired by God is a matter of faith. So, to simply say that something was written in the Bible and thus it must be so is incredibly naive. I generally prefer science to religion, but since I know a little about sciences (physical and social) I also know that the world is complex, and we don't know everything. My preference for science is based on the fact that it is useful for us to learn more. I was raised in a church and continue to lead what I think is an honest life according to how I was raised. I don't see a conflict between science and religion, at least none that requires a resolution.

Religion is little more than contempory mythology and should be taught in schools along with Greek and Roman mythology.

Atheism is enlightenment and we'll all get along with one another once we all become enlightened.

Well here's wrench in the cog:

The bible says God created woman from Adam's rib right? Well, you can get DNA from a rib. So, if we go with that, God CLONED Eve. And isn't God supposed to be against cloning?

Once upon-a-time aceient civilation created a set of laws to live by. It was written upon scolls and was followed for thounsands of years. Meant to be a guiding light of law it was quickly used by evil humans to gain wealth, power and control over the human sprit.
Then in 2050 evdence,, I'll finish the tale later.

The fact that scientists have made a law out of evolution is an ironic example of closed-minded thought that the scientific community accuses faith-based organizations of believing.

the evidence supports evolution however an omniscient and omnipotent God can plant what ever facts at his pleasure. Or, the devil can create particulars that point in a certain direction as a test. After all, good and evil is a free choice, but I don't think it's a choice or a plant. Be careful and don't confuse God with peoples' use of God as a crutch or excuse or tool to further advance their agenda as Aliar Gore is using "gorebal science" to advance his agenda.

So why do many otherwise intelligent people believe in crazy things? It is a mystery but it is a psychological truism. The creation-evolution debate is nothing new, but if you study the debates it is the creationists who are always the most dishonest, devious, and misleading.

From a purely scientific point of view...isn't evolution based on assumptions? It is not observable; nor can it be reproduced now. There is no scientific evidence supporting one species evolving to another. What Darwin observed was microevolution, simply adaptation within a species...the rest is speculation. The fossil record actually shows more evidence that supports Biblical accounts. Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not contradictory. Where chapter 1 is very thorough in laying out the detailed account of creation in order; chapter 2 is not concerned with the order, but rather focuses on the actual creation of man/woman and the things pertaining to them. For instance, chapter 2 speaks of the "cultivated" plants and the plants God caused to grow in the Garden, not plants in general.
Further, Darwin was no scientist. His only real education was Theology! His speculations on evolution came at time when he was confused and frustrated that a loving God could allow bad things to happen. So, basically, he was looking for any other way besides acknowledging a creator.
In recent years, scientists have observed newly formed rock from Mt. St Helen's eruption. When the rock was about 20 years old, the carbon dating showed it to be millions of years old! This is one of many many real evidences that carbon dating is inaccurate and that the earth very well may be only thousands of years old. There is so much that can be discussed for days concerning this. It is just amazing!
One more thing, evolutionists would agree that civilization began about 10,000 years ago...right about the time of the creation account. Oh, and dinosaurs? Yes, there is amazing evidence that shows these creatures were here with men.
Search for truth...not merely to prove someone else wrong...and ask yourselve these questions...How do you know what you believe is true? What does it matter now and in the future?

Uhm...The devil is never addressed in the Bible. As I remember it, and as it is WRITTEN, it was a serpent, named as such. If you are willing to draw a comparison of the serpent to the "devil" then why can't you believe that God created this world in millions of years with the expecation of humans as a creation in his image?

Really...point out ONE bit of scripture where the "Devil" or "Satan" is mentioned...just one.

Here's something for all you creationists to chew on...

How does one reconcile their belief in an omnipresent, omnipotent, caring and loving God with the fact there has been such great suffering on Earth? If there is such a being, don't you think that it would help the poor, the innocent, the starving, the suffering? Or stopped the many wars waged in its name?

I cannot believe that any being could be so cruel as to not intervene to put an end to the suffering and strife we see everyday, once and for all!

tricky - Satan and the Devil are mentioned numerous times in the Bible. Jesus had conversaions with him. Look in Matthew, Luke, and Job for starters.

Walker: I like how your comments are thought-provoking rather than accusatory or defensive. It's pretty clear that no one writing on this blog is going to change his or her mind about this issue, but one can hope that our writings at least encourage others to think about the issue rather than turn them off from it by bickering senselessly.

[When you put all the pieces of the puzzle together, there really is proof that man and dinosaur were on Earth at the same time.]

Thanks for chiming in, Mr. Flintstone...

[God isn't anti-war.]

Gee, that's a new one. What happened to 'love thy neighbor?'

How do you explain the giraffe?

[Not surprising that you would ignore the "great commandment":

Love God with all your heart and mind.]

Nice comeback.

My mind, being quite sound, cannot believe in something that does not exist. My heart goes out to all who suffer in His name.

Ben Stein refers to himself as part of the "intelligentsia"??? LOL Yeah, sure Ben. You and Anna Nicole Smith. He's a nitwit who wants people to think he's smart and/or educated. Simply not true.

Humans invented the concept of a god to explain the mysteries of the environment around them. This concept is a product of evolution itself. In other words, man invented God to explain what he couldn't have explained through science. When man began to develop a conscience, he had the ability to cognitively recognize his own existence. He knew he was going to die, and had started to ask questions about where he came from. God was the only answer available because the science needed to answer those questions would take centuries to discover.

How lucky we are to live in a time when we have finally arrived at the correct answer.

Steve-O: if we are not to take the bible literally then it is useless. If it is open to interpretation than it is the foundation of nothing and the meaning of anything and everything you want it to be. If God wants so bad for us to understand what he wants then why would he make it so difficult for us to understand? Parables in a book? Are you kidding me? There's nothing but nothing to understand here except religion is the opium of the masses. The truth is that no one alive today has any idea what life is all about. They are simply hopelessly grabbing at something to make themselves feel better about their existance. It's their own insecurities that motivate them to do this. Their lack of faith in themselves and then religion simply reinforces that and tells them that they should have faith in an icon instead.

Do Christians rely on 2000 year old medical journals? 2000 year old engineering manuals? Etc. etc.

Of course not.

But Chrisitians desperately cling to their 2000 year old collection of foolish short stories.

Well, I guess if one persists in believing the myths concocted by a bunch of ragged, ignorant, superstitious shepherds in the middle of a desert several thousand years ago, one deserves the Inquisition and Salem witch hunts AND Pat Robertson.

Great, people who are convinced there is no God are going to belittle the people that do. The people who are convinced there is a God are going to try and convince the non-believers of their conviction. Waste of time on both sides. This behavior on every article/news item like this, is as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning.

the bible was written by human hands....enough said.

There a simple way to prove which is right evolution or creation.
Let beging by thinking that global warming is real and let it continue uninterrupted. If evelotion is correct will adapt and only the fittest will survive by evolving to something that will adapt to the new enviroment. If creation is correct then god will save us and create a better world for us.
Let just wait to see who's correct on the end.
I just looking for a idealistic solution for this issue that is the most important in my life, other that taking care of the less important ones like living day to day.

"The bible is contradictory and it is high time we drop it."

such talk proves that the end time for this world is nearing. soon most if not all in this world will think god is a myth and the anti-christ will use this to take control.

When did he become a expert of all things? The little he knows allows him access to spew his lack of insight on a matter because he used to say Buller Buller Buller?? Just because he is someone famous you put his rant on the web ABC? So did Disney put you up to this? The biggest problem we face today is from people who look at the Bible, Koran, Torah, and any other religion. And put there faith in books of fictions. We as a species have only been truely enlightened for the past 10,000 years. But of course we all know the earth was created in how days again. What a joke... Good reporting ABC....

Take the bible away, and god believers have NOTHING. I would rather choose to believe Harry Potter books, than the supposed 'facts' we've been shoveled all these years from churches across this country. Humanity will continue to evolve away from religion, and embrace facts. Spirituality will continue, religion will not.

ever played "telephone"? that's how the bible was written, from stories passed down.....there is a 100% guarantee that there are misinterpretations, exaggerations and outright falsehoods in such a document, which, additionally, in is multiple versions......unfortunately for many who base their arguments both for and against the bible on its passages, it cannot be taken literally....

Hmmm... Whaddya know? Creationism rearing its ugly head.

Must be getting close to election season in the "heartland."

Truthseeker....There is evidence that dinosuars and man exsisted at the same time? NICE! I have never heard that one before.

Wrong. The bible does not say men were created before animals, it says the opposite. It also does not give a timeline of how old the bible is. The 5,000-10,000 year theory is men trying to put a timeline on it. However the sun, was not created at the seperation of day and night, therefore our perception of time is distorted next to Gods.

Big Bang Theory

It gets more absurd all the time.

Galaxies supposedly moved to their present vicinity in a fraction of a second before the laws of physics began.

The big bang does the same things God does, except God does it through the laws of physics, and the big bang doesn't.

Physicists painted themselves into a corner in their incremental development of the big band theory, and it forced them into an extremely absurd end point.

They first based the theory on the simplest logic. Everything seemed to be moving away from the Earth, as if it were an expanding explosion. Then they set distances based upon the speed of light. But when they added everything together, there wasn't enough time for matter to travel to its present location. So they said it got there almost instantly, and then the laws of physics began.

Why didn't the laws of physics begin when matter got half way to its present location? What caused the laws of physics to begin? The whole purpose is to deny the existence of a creator.

Physicists base their claim that the entire universe started at a very small point on a red shift in light. Red shift means spectral lines are located more toward the longer side than usual. It usually results from motion away from the observer. Since the more distant galaxies show more red shift, they are assumed to be moving away faster than closer ones. Supposedly, an explosion would do this, hence the big bang theory.

But there are some quirky red shifts, such as quasars showing more than usual, while they cannot be that far away. A more logic explanation is that light loses energy when traveling for billions of years. One cause could be resistance in the ether which light travels through. Another cause could be "the Compton effect," which means matter which light contacts reduces its energy.

The total context shows that there was no big bang. The distance problem is an example. Physicists claim the universe is about 15 billion years old. When they look at a galaxy which is 15 billion light years away, they say they see it shortly after the universe began. How did it get that far away in such a short amount of time? If it traveled at the speed of light, it would have taken 15 billion years to get that far away from the earth in addition to the 15 billion years for the light to get to earth. It doesn't add up. One tenth the speed of light would be a more realistic velocity for matter to travel. It would then have taken 150 billion years to get that far from the earth.

To fix that contradiction, physicists contrived a bit of absurdity called inflation, which means the universe expands instead of objects moving. Then objects can separate without moving. This is after denying that there is anything in space. Emptiness cannot expand without being something.

The inflation concept adds more contradictions. The closest objects would have been expanding by inflation, just as the more distant objects. This means every star in the Milky Way Galaxy, which Earth is a part of, would need to be more than 15 billion light years apart, and the Milky way would be invisible.

To get "inflation" to work, it had to magically put everything where it is now located in near zero time—some things moving a long distance, and some things moving a short distance. Inflation had to work like the hand of God, in zero time and without laws of physics. It only differs from God in being spelled differently.

It is obvious from observations that everything in the universe is about where it always has been, and it doesn't move very much. But physicists cannot explain how it got there. They have a terrible need to justify their atheism by denying that God could have create galaxies and stars where they are, so they synthesize absurdities to prove that it didn't happen. Trying to prove that God did not do what he did is not science, it's corrupt religion. Religion needs to stay out of science. This means that if science cannot determine how the universe got where it is, there is no justification in contriving absurdities such as the Bing Bang Theory to explain it.

Part Two: Cosmic Inflation

Inflation is the term physicists are using to explain how all matter went from an infinitesimally small point to the size of the universe in near instant time. It means nothing moved with velocity, while the universe expanded causing pre-matter to separate.

This is a new method of science, where laws of nature are changed without a physical phenomenon existing to explain it. It is a principle synthesized out of words without a basis in laws of nature.

At question are two methods of changing location. Elsewhere in science, change of location is called motion, which is quantitated as velocity. The new method of changing location does not involve motion. How do you tell whether motion is involved or not? There is no natural phenomenon to indicate which method of changing location applies. The only determining factor is whether one is trying to rationalize the big bang.

Big bang creates a need for pre-matter to change location, while normal concepts of motion cannot be used, because nothing can move that fast. So a new concept was created saying location changes without motion. It's creating a concept for rationalization purposes with no natural phenomenon as the basis.

This result stems from the motive of disproving a creator. Atheists in physics claim that the big bang theory proves that random motion created the universe instead of God. As evidence increases to indicate that galaxies were created in approximately their present location, physicists add rationalizations to the big bang theory instead of admitting they are wrong. They are at a point of making a mockery of science instead of admitting that proof is proof.

Honestly, I can not even believe that this issue has been taken as seriously as it has. It's like trying to convince a brick wall that Cinderella is only a fairy tale. It's truly sad when personal beliefs have to be aired out like dirty laundry and gets shoved in everyone's face. Fact belongs to everyone. Faith is your own. Leave it that way.

DaveG--you are correct. The problem is inherent in fundamentalism. With that, there IS no alternative--everything is black and white.

It also devalues tolerance, education, etc. The problem is that fundamentalism stretches across multiple faiths--it is not just an issue of Christian whack jobs.

Evolution is fine if you do not include man!!!! Man is too far removed from any animal to have evolved from an animal. Intelligent design, you bet it is real----look at yourself and your brain and tell me your genes were once part of a monkey---bull!

Truthsearcher – who told you “evolution is not observable; nor can it be reproduced now.” Check out the book, The Beak of the Finch, winner of the 1995 Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction. This facinating book documents how natural selection sometimes takes place so rapidly that we humans can see in our lifetimes, similar to the way insects become resistant to insecticides and bacteria change to become resistant to drugs.

Ben Stein is always wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. He was wrong when he accused Bob Woodward of lying about the existance of "Deep Throat" and he wrong about Nixon... Ben...what Nixon did that was so terrible....he lied...he lied the the American people. You are angry at Clinton regarding his escapades but forgive Larry Craig. Ben, if there is any proof needed for people to believe in evolution you gave it to them by advocating against it. Because Ben Stine is always wrong.