SciAm Interview with Mark Mathis of Expelled - 3 of 8

Scientific American interviewed Mark Mathis, associate producer of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed


The original audio can be downloaded here: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-conversation-with-mark-mathis

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Creationism
• Scientific
• American
• Interview
• Expelled
• Mathis
• Reaming
• Butthurt
• Pharyngula
• Dawkins
• NCSE

[Grundibular]

4:00 > There it is! That's a tough question to answer. The awkward conclusion being that Darwinian evolution happens to disagree with the bible.

The bible does not make specific claims about the electro-magnetic force, gravity (much), quantum theory or the atomic nucleus. It DOES however, make very specific claims about US and where WE came from and HOW.

Hardly surprising that Darwin's dangerous idea sticks in the throat of the believer.

[deBeuk]

"The awkward conclusion being that Darwinian evolution happens to disagree with the bible"

No, it contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis.

"The bible does not make specific claims about the electro-magnetic force, gravity (much), quantum theory or the atomic nucleus. It DOES however, make very specific claims about US and where WE came from and HOW"

The bible claims bats are birds, that insects have 4 legs, that the earth is unmovable, etc.

[Gorillathehun]

What is the likelihood of an intelligent designer? 1/0=undefined.

[MrFacet]

... that the earth has 4 corners, that rain is caused by opening the "windows of the sky" (the sky is blue because of the layer of water on top of the sky), that pi is 30:10, ....

[mikemikemofo]

amazing how they get through their day.

[A4AgnstcFndmntlst]

I myself cannot reconcile science with religion. There are those who can and I know many.

If they can reconcile both faith and science I say good for them. I'd rather have a Christian understand and accept the scientific method than push the issue that they either have to reject faith in order to trust science which has the risk of pushing them back into their faith.

I highly respect Ken Miller.

[mattb521]

I really don't understand how someone can conclude that faith in the supernatural is as viable a conclusion as acceptance of verifiable, materialistic conclusions. They'd have to completely contradict the very methodology they use in live their own every day lives, which is based completely on evidence/reason. It's absurd to no end. Thanks a lot for posting this though! The whole movie is an appeal to motives...