Movie Review: Expelled
posted at 3:00 pm on April 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
While at CPAC in February, I had an opportunity to attend an advance screening of the new documentary, Expelled: The Movie. Ben Stein focuses on a perceived lack of intellectual freedom afforded to those who either believe in or investigate Intelligent Design theories in the scientific community. I wrote the following review at the time; the producers may have made some changes since, but I don’t believe it would change the thrust of my review. I plan on seeing the theatrical release this weekend, and would recommend it to everyone as at least a way to discuss the values and limitations of scientific inquiry and intellectual openness in American Academia.
The bloggers at CPAC received an invitation to screen a new documentary on academic intolerance called Expelled: The Movie this evening. The documentary features Ben Stein on a quest to understand the near-hysteria caused by scientists who so much as broach the idea of intelligent design in papers or in research. It follows Stein as he interviews professors denied tenure, editors fired, and journalists shunned for touching the subject even at its most innocuous levels.
Before discussing my feelings about the film, which is still in post-production and will not go into release until April, I should explain my approach to the ID/evolution debate. I believe evolution is demonstrably proven in enough examples to say that its effect on variation in species cannot be denied. The example I used tonight in discussing this with another viewer (certainly not the only example) is antibiotic effects on bacteria. Antibiotics that kill 99% of bacteria eventually promote the survival and the expansion of the 1% that resist them, created superbacteria that require another set of antibiotics to cure, and so on.
That said, evolution does not interfere with my faith in God. God certainly could have created the universe with a design that included life. The rational laws of nature would include evolution, as well as the myriad of other rational and mathematically provable mechanisms that undergird nature. In fact, the impulse of man to discover the rational laws of nature began with the belief in a rational God, as scientists understood nature’s rationality to reveal an intelligent Creator.
I’d go deeper than that, but Dinesh D’Souza covers it nicely enough already in his book What’s So Great About Christianity, and it’s getting late enough as it is. Suffice it to say that evolution doesn’t present a threat to my worldview.
Rationally, we have to admit that some use ID as an excuse to teach the more literal form of Creationism that has been used to argue against evolution entirely, especially against teaching evolution in primary-school classrooms. That admission does not appear in Expelled, which is a glaring omission. It tends to take out of context the frustration some scientists have about ID, and its place in polarizing the debate over its use. Properly framed, ID accepts all of the science without accepting its transformation into its own belief system.
What do I mean by that? In this, the film does an excellent job of demonstrating atheism as a belief system. Atheism as represented by Richard Dawkings and others in this film gets exposed as exactly the kind of belief system they claim to despise. They can’t prove God exists — and they can’t prove God doesn’t exist. They make the common fallacy of arguing that absence of evidence amounts to evidence of absence.
But in a way, this is all secondary to the real issue of the film: academic intolerance. The debate over ID vs Darwinism sets the table for a truly disturbing look at academia. Science should be about the free debate and research of ideas and hypotheses for duplicable results and provable theorems. However, as the examples Stein and the film provide amply show, the Darwinist academic establishment will brook no dissent from the orthodoxy — and scientists have to be shown with hidden faces to speak to the issue for the film.
Amusingly, Stein asks people how the first cell came to be. None of the scientists could give him a straight answer. Dawkins himself admits he doesn’t know and that no one else does, either — but postulates that aliens could have brought life to this planet, and then postulates that another alien civilization could have brought life to that planet, and so on. He then concedes that one entity could have been the original source … but insists that entity could not possibly have been God. For this he gives absolutely no evidence at all, relegating it as a belief system somewhat akin to Scientology.
All of this is extremely effective, as are the many allusions made to the Berlin Wall during the film. The theme runs throughout, and it explicitly refers to the defensive academic establishment as having built a wall that tramples on freedom of thought and discourse. Less effective is the heavy references to the Nazis in the movie. Although emotionally affecting for some obvious reasons, the fact is that while the Nazis were mostly Darwinists (along with a lot of other things), the vast majority of Darwinists aren’t Nazis. Certainly the eugenicists in Nazi Germany were mightily influenced by Darwinism, but America had its own eugenicists, which the film points out.
I should point out that the film has not finished production, and that changes will be made between now and its release in April. The filmmakers just completed an interview with Christopher Hitchens and will include it in the final cut. I believe other changes may be made which could address some of the criticisms I’ve written here.
Overall, though, the film presents a powerful argument not for intelligent design as much as for the freedom of scientific inquiry. If scientists get punished for challenging orthodoxy, we will not expand our learning but ossify it in concrete. Expelled: The Movie is entertaining, maddening, funny, and provocative, and well worth your time.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 24 »
Ben should be doing economic movies, not ID movies.
lorien1973 on April 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Therein lies the problem. This is not Darwinian evolution, nor does variation within species disprove Creation.
Darwinian evolution teaches that ONE species evolved into an entirely DIFFERENT species. And that’s where the evidence breaks down. Just the mathematical impossibility of writing new DNA precludes Darwinian evolution.
Yes, there is evidence of different breeding within dogs, for example, but there is no evidence whatsoever that proves that a reptile became a bird. Such are the teachings of evolution.
fossten on April 18, 2008 at 3:10 PM
If “scientists” waste their careers on theories that aren’t testable and don’t generate any predictions then they can expect to have their careers decline. What’s worst about this movie is that when scientists raise legitimate criticisms of it, ID loons will just use their criticism as evidence of “suppression”.
crr6 on April 18, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Should Ben Franklin have stuck with just science or just politics?
Besides, Stein has already played an economics instructor:
“Anyone… anyone..” :^)
db on April 18, 2008 at 3:13 PM
My thoughts exactly, Ed. I’ll be sure to go see it.
My argument against strict evolution has been from a molecular biology aspect.
Which came first: DNA or proteins? DNA is the genetic material. When I teach this in my classes, I tell the students that DNA is the blueprint to make a protein. But for a cell to grow and divide, it must make a copy of its DNA. Proteins are used to make DNA. So which is it? Do the instructions come first or the tools to make the instructions?
Another argument: how is it that all living organisms use DNA as their genetic material? If evolution and the origin of life on this planet were the result of totally random events, you would expect there to be variation where different organisms might using some other type of molecule to construct there genetic information. But the opposite is true.
I believe in the species evolution of organisms. There’s physical evidence that points to this. 6000 years? Not so much.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 18, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Mr. Myers is actually in the “Expelled” movie, he is one of the persons interviewed.
Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 3:14 PM
You are my hero Ed, one of the best bloggers and commentators anywhere.
Squid Shark on April 18, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Ahem.
its vintage duh on April 18, 2008 at 3:15 PM
“the real issue of the film: academic intolerance.”
‘Academic’ being one leg of the left’s stool; global warming debate, anyone?
exhelodrvr on April 18, 2008 at 3:15 PM
I expect Myers fits the last three of the four groups he mentions.
db on April 18, 2008 at 3:16 PM
You go from one extreme to another, without finding the middle ground that Ed is talking about.
Squid Shark on April 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM
This movie looks like the type of kookery that Hot Air usually ridicules Ron Paul and scientologist for. I suspect there won’t be so much ridicule this time though.
Ars Moriendi on April 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM
It’s hard out here for a
pimpconservative scientist.Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 18, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Odd for you to say that, since he’s doing an academic intolerance, not an ‘intelligence design’ movie.
wise_man on April 18, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Here’s another review from a site that should get a lot more attention.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/expelled_conspiracy_or_claptrap/
I haven’t seen and am not going to see it. Some of the antics of the ID movement really irk me. That being said, I couldn’t care less about PZ Meyers being interviewed under false pretenses considering how much they talk about framing things at scienceblogs.
ninjapirate on April 18, 2008 at 3:18 PM
I agree with the people who this film criticizes to a degree,ID is used as an innocuous wedge to push literal creationism on students who are there to learn some freakin science. They can go to Sunday school to get their Creation story and justify the two together, just like the rest of us.
Remember, in the beginning WJB used anti-Darwinism as a crutch to justify his kooky savior populism.
Squid Shark on April 18, 2008 at 3:20 PM
C-Span recently aired two programs each with authors discussing the Evolution/IntelligentDesign debate(The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism And Its Scientific Pretensions by David Berlinski and Chance or Purpose: Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith by Christoph Cardinal Schönborn. Both are available to watch online:
Cardinal Schönborn argues that science and religion are not incompatible and that dogmatism on either side is unsupportable.
David Berlinski, teacher and author of books on mathematics, challenges the fields of science and atheist thought by arguing that science has not been able to prove the inexistence of a God nor explain the start of the universe.
D0WNT0WN on April 18, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Remember creationists and I.D. guys, the universe is very Rumsfeldian; that is, you don’t come into existence in the universe you wish you had, rather, you come into existence with the universe you have.
If God created the universe in such a way that intelligent life evolved from lower organisms, which emerged themselves from a primordial soup of organic molecules (which all scientific evidence suggests), then thats the way God willed it, and to call such ideas wicked or evil or anti-Christian in-and-of-itself would be blasphemy on your part! Are you saying God is evil and wicked and anti-Christ?
You religious fundie folk better be 100% sure that evolution is not natural history if you are going to go around and make the claim that evolution violates God’s moral precepts.
Jimmy the Dhimmi on April 18, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Bueller…Bueller…Bueller?
Zaire67 on April 18, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Just read the comments in this thread as it unfolds. I guarantee the pro-evolution crowd will almost universally see no middle ground, but rather scoff and mock the ID crowd. Scroll up, it’s already begun.
fossten on April 18, 2008 at 3:20 PM
…and the Greatest generation begat the Spoiled generation which begat the Entitled generation which begat a Gestalt generation of spoiled, entitled people who think they are the greatest….
OK. I made that up, but that’s evolution for ya.
Randy
williars on April 18, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Likewise, you evolutionist atheist folk better be 100% sure that the Bible is wrong, or you’ll be burning in hell one day.
fossten on April 18, 2008 at 3:22 PM
When you act in a manner which deserves mocking, that is what you shall get.
Squid Shark on April 18, 2008 at 3:23 PM
So, those who propound the evolutionary model should thereby fail in their efforts? Yes, that seems about right. Unless of course, middlebrow, agenda-driven careerists are in control of academia.
Having dealt with profound quackery in the name of the evolutionary model before in a former capacity on a university board of regents, I regret that much stupidity is tolerated in defense not of truth, but of the unfortunate status quo ante in which professors may retain their comfortable tenures.
Scribbler on April 18, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Yup. Scientific consensus can never be wrong — heh…
db on April 18, 2008 at 3:24 PM
I just saw the movie. It is outstanding. It gives so much information in a condensed form that I will go and see again. It clarified many things about id that I did not know. I find that the id proponents were more that willing to have an open debate and discussion with the darwinists,however the reverse was not true. We must be informed and aware and demand that all may ask questions of science and faith. The two are not mutually exclusive as some would have it. I find interesting that the academic monolith is so rigid and afraid of questions in many areas, not just id. It seems that when people operate out fear the mind remains closed.
babynurse1 on April 18, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Evolutionist Jew here, I suppose there is a special place in hell for me, since Im one of G-d’s chosen evolutionist.
Squid Shark on April 18, 2008 at 3:25 PM
HAHAH I love Creationists calling evolution “quackery”.
Squid Shark on April 18, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Finally, a movie that I would pay to see.
It does look “awesome”.
Hening on April 18, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Proving a species’ ability to “adapt” does not prove a species’ ability to evolve. Nice post fossten.
saltydogg14 on April 18, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Quoting a Cardinal to your average Creationist is like quoting Satan, they are the “Great Whore” dontcha know?
Squid Shark on April 18, 2008 at 3:29 PM
BTW, why is this getting a theatrical release? They’ve spent so much money on ads and extra crap. It would have been a lot better to go straight to video and youtube.
ninjapirate on April 18, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Likewise, when you act in an arrogant, scoffing manner, your flaws shall be corrected.
fossten on April 18, 2008 at 3:29 PM
The “scientific evidence” you refer to has been disproved. But since no opposing view is allowed, that information will never be disseminated.
Zaire67 on April 18, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Really? You believe we came from monkeys, and you think we’re funny? That post will require me to buy a new keyboard.
fossten on April 18, 2008 at 3:30 PM
For the record, this mainstream scientific obstinacy and hostility toward valid alternative viewpoints (which have usually been scrutinized much more scientifically) is very widespread, and extends way beyond the creationism/evolutionism debate. Most notably it is occurring in astronomy, cosmology, geology, physics and probably every other branch of science.
The peer-review process has become a complete joke and has ruined genuine scientific exploration.
Riposte on April 18, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Exactly. If creation/ID is so full of crap, why won’t evolutionists debate it? Why the desperate attempts to silence it? Must be afraid of something.
fossten on April 18, 2008 at 3:31 PM
This interview with Stein and RC SProul is fascinating.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4609561480192587449&q=Stein+Sproul&ei=SPcISMa-K4GQrAKey-D2Dg&hl=en
well worth your time, gives alot to chew on
jp on April 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Ditto
infidel2 on April 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM
I’ve personally always believed in ‘evolution’ but only as a follow up process to one kick-started, or created, by God. I’ve never understood why one has to either be a Creationist, which I find is an absurd proposition if taken to the extreme of claiming the earth is only 10k yrs old, and pure ‘from nothingness’ evolution. Why could not God have merely been the spark that set all events in motion? Like bowling, God released the ball and let it follow its path unencumbered and we’re still on our way down the alley. Likewise God the great experimenter set out different courses on other planets in this vast cosmos of ours. Perhaps God has a wry sense of humor.
DerKrieger on April 18, 2008 at 3:34 PM
I wouldn’t call myself a Christian, though I am anything but an atheist.
That said, I think that two points need to be made.
1. Claiming that “Some species mutate, and one or both of the variations might survive, or might not. That’s evolution.” is some sort of scientific theory is the biggest example of science as faith in our recent history. It’s even more evident by the scientific reaction to competing theories being vitriolic attacks on credibility, laced with a huge amount of fear. Evolution is no more a provable proposition than intelligent design or creation is. That’s fine, as long as all of the scientific community recognizes that their belief system is not only questionable, but reflected under the first amendment as not one that can be forced on the populace in any manner by the state, which includes public education, without proper disclaimer.
2. The intelligentsia has historically been as fervent in their claims, on nearly any topic, as spiritual leaders are of their spiritual propositions. Typically, one ruling consensus seizes power, and the dissenters are spurned, just as in any dictatorship or oligarchy. The question is, why hasn’t the government taken a much more offensive role in rooting out and preventing this kind of denial of civil rights?
Unfortunately, there are some simple answers to the second question, and most here know what they are.
With that said, Ben Stein put on a good show.
MadisonConservative on April 18, 2008 at 3:35 PM
thats because they get exposed easliy, they have to deny their own Science(things like the Laws of Inertia), Newton, David Hume, Einstein, etc. to hold fast to their dogma and relgion of atheism.
their worldview can’t account for their own Science.
jp on April 18, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Exactly, I have always said I don’t understand the controversy in the whole ID/Evo debate when in my opinion one theory doesn’t disprove the other. If God created life as we know it he surely had to work within the laws of nature to do it, the difference being is since he’s the creator God understands the laws of nature and how to work/manipulate them much better than us mere mortals.
When looked at in this perspective there really is no controversy, yet the controversy remains because there are people on both sides of the debate with their own agenda.
Me personally I like my theory the best as it’s simple, makes sense to me, and goes very well with my belief in God and another existence beyond this one.
Liberty or Death on April 18, 2008 at 3:36 PM
If I might briefly plug myself, I too wrote a “review” of Expelled, which can be found here, if you’re interested.
I don’t think this movie has any credibility. It hasn’t been screened for critics, and Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers have both claimed the producers of Expelled weren’t honest with them when they were asked to participate in the movie. I haven’t seen anyone debunk the claim that Dawkins and Myers were lied to, so if someone has a link that refutes them, please post it.
In fact, PZ Meyers was thrown out of a private prescreening at the Mall of America last month, even though he’s in the movie. This doesn’t indicate to me that Expelled is a serious movie. I imagine that it’s a documentary in the Michael Moore/Al Gore style - short on argument, short on honesty, and long on “we know better than those shifty atheist scientists.”
Public schools have no business teaching God in science class. We can’t assume the existence of a Designer, since He continues to deprive us of evidence of His existence. Faith should be taught at home, not in a government school. Period.
Enrique on April 18, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Plenty of people have debated it, ad nauseum, on the net on CSPAN, in books.
All it comes down to is sound scientific observations of real phenomenon turned into a theory generally accepted by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community vs. a rehashed teleological argument from 1802.
Squid Shark on April 18, 2008 at 3:37 PM
1) Gonna see it.
2) I believe evolution is reasonably well-proven. I respect a scientist who doesn’t want to look outside that box because they don’t believe the evidence is there - but not one who tries to force others not to look outside that box.
3) Dawkins is a fundamental moron. The “alien origins of life” hypothesis is absolutely stupid - it’s not an origin, dumbass, life still had to originate somewhere else!!!! You aren’t answering the question!
I had that conversation once, with someone who (enamored by the Mars Meteorite buzz of the late 90s) believed that life came to Earth from Mars. Fair enough, I said, how did it come to be on Mars. They postulated that it came from space, then that it came from another world, where it had arrived from space… at which point I just said “So, it’s turtles all the way down?” (Look it up…)
How is in infinite chain of spaceborne infections more rational than belief in an infinite being?
4) This will lead to several “red meat” posts.
5) Echoing Ed - if you believe in an all-knowing and all-powerful entity, it is almost obvious that they could create the universe in so precise a fashion that it would inevitably evolve a human being. Saying it’s so and saying it’s not so are both articles of faith. If one believes that Occam’s Razor is always correct, one would prefer the latter - but that would be something of a leap of faith.
That being said, I’m somewhat shocked that the standard “super sciencey guy” position isn’t agnosticism - “insufficient evidence to form a conclusion.”
Merovign on April 18, 2008 at 3:37 PM
The reason is because the Bible teaches that death came as a result of sin. If Evolution is true, then the Bible is false, because evolution provides for death literally millions of years before Man walked the Earth. That is completely contrary to what the Bible teaches, which is that Adam and Eve’s sin caused death.
Thus, evolution and the Bible are completely incompatible.
fossten on April 18, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Strangely, IMDB seems to be ignoring “Expelled’s” release today: Shameless self-plug
JinxMcHue on April 18, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Evolution ask us to believe that life is so simple that it can
happen by accident…. yet …. so complex that the collective knowledge of the ages cannot reproduce it.
I haven’t seen the movie yet but I look forward to it. God bless Ben Stein for taking on the establishment and trying to acquire some academic freedom for our children in this area.
Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 3:39 PM
This is incorrect and shows a lack of knowledge about God. God is not bound by the very laws that He created. The Bible does not support your theory. You must have learned that from somewhere else.
fossten on April 18, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Ed,
I’ve seen the final edit, and the Hitchens interview is not included. FYI.
Jack M. on April 18, 2008 at 3:41 PM
The fact that you consider “Intelligent Design” to be synonymous with “Creationism” shows your profound ignorance of both.
JinxMcHue on April 18, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Bryan linked an article he wrote last year in his post on the Human Genome project.
You can make a good case, as he did, that Genesis is the absolute word of God and 100% accurate AND compatible with the Big Bang Theory. Using Space/Time and Einstein’s discovery. i.e. 7 days of creation are Universe days not Earth days….and alot more of course. it was a good article.
jp on April 18, 2008 at 3:41 PM
A review for a movie you haven’t watched?
BTW, Dawkins has used a lot of creative selective editing for the documentaries that he’s created for the BBC. That’s worse than being interviewed under false pretenses.
ninjapirate on April 18, 2008 at 3:42 PM
No, nooo. The argument is, that creationism be taught in conjunction with evolutionary science. To only teach one…which so far is only theory…is to limit the student’s reach into the well of knowledge.
I agree with Ed, that the truth is both…nothing in evolution disproves creationism. Evolution is simply part of God’s master plan.
JetBoy on April 18, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Academic intolerance of minority opinion is commonplace. The field of psychology is positively infested with it. Go back to the 1960’s when BF Skinner’s ideas on behaviorism were ascendant. Back then, psychologists espousing the now commonplace views of the cognitive perspective were denied grants, made fun of, and even harassed by their peers.
This has become a systemic problem, because academics are often too personally vested in their ideas. The pretensions of objectivity don’t help either. No one is objective when their reputation, pride (and by extension their livelihood) are on the line. It’s a foolish conceit the scientific community would be better off abandoning. After all, the biggest barrier to real understanding is being convinced that you know more than you actually do.
Anyway, I hope that the secular set won’t get so bent out of shape over the topic used to illustrate the point that they miss the point entirely.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 18, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Interesting that you use Occam’s Razor here. Question:
Which requires more faith: That God created man from the dust of the ground, and that the entire complex universe was designed, or…that by pure accident Man came from monkeys who came from fish who came from amoebas in the ocean that came from nobody knows where?
fossten on April 18, 2008 at 3:43 PM
I guess one has to not be a Biblical literalist to be accepting of the theory then.
DerKrieger on April 18, 2008 at 3:43 PM
I reserve comments about the intellectual capacity and physical appearance of people in certain part of the country, but I shall refrain.
Squid Shark on April 18, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Myers is yet another reason neither of my children will attend any Minnesota university.
Blue-eyed Infidel on April 18, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Except for that pesky sin part. OOPS!
fossten on April 18, 2008 at 3:45 PM
You just reminded me of a great joke:
A little girl asked her father: “How did the human race appear?”
The father answered, “God made Adam and Eve; they had children; and so was all mankind made.”
Two days later the girl asked her mother the same question. The mother answered, “Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved.”
The confused girl returned to her father and said, “Dad, how is it possible that you told me the human race was created by God, and Mom said they developed from monkeys?”
The father answered, “Well, Dear, it is very simple. I told you about my side of the family, and your mother told you about hers.”
db on April 18, 2008 at 3:45 PM
there’s a larger point to be taken here for us “limited Government” liberty loving types. the worldview of all the founders was that of a Creation by a Creator as a base pressuposition. They were not atheist. This is important because as the Declaration says, “we are given rights by our Creator”, if they didn’t beleive in a creator then its the STATE that Gives Rights and the STATE can just as easily take those away.
that alone is the real uniqueness of our founding, the first country to recongize that fact.
jp on April 18, 2008 at 3:46 PM
You don’t have to believe in pure accident.
ninjapirate on April 18, 2008 at 3:46 PM
I haven’t seen the movie, but in Dawkins’s last book didn’t he write that he thought it was fine in his mind to refer to the original spark of life as “God”?
Typhonsentra on April 18, 2008 at 3:46 PM
There’s nothing figurative about God’s treatment of sin in Genesis. It’s very clear. Please go read it, it starts in Chapter 3.
It isn’t a question of literalism, it’s a question of compatibility.
fossten on April 18, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Huh?
Squid Shark on April 18, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Sorry, Darwinian evolution does not agree with you, nor do the evolutionist bigwig scientists always bashing Creation. They are very much “take it or leave it” in their beliefs.
fossten on April 18, 2008 at 3:48 PM
It looks like a lot of people here think that the process of mutation and natural selection is the same thing as evolution.
db on April 18, 2008 at 3:49 PM
I just saw the movie. I highly recommend it. I really think it start a discussion.
terryannonline on April 18, 2008 at 3:49 PM
thats not signing up with darwinian evolution, just that the Big Bang type of initial beginning could be right and 1 million Universe Years is equal to 1 Earth day..
jp on April 18, 2008 at 3:49 PM
I’ve already explained the incompatibility of the Bible with evolution, check my post at 3:38.
Try and keep up. ;)
fossten on April 18, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Sorry, evolution teaching consistent with the Big Bang also teaches that species evolved into other species, and that death preceded Man. That makes the Bible incompatible with Evolution.
fossten on April 18, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Yep. ID proponents are the right’s global warming fanatics. ID proponents and global warming fanatics are anti science and anti progress, and are equally unpleasant to deal with.
funky chicken on April 18, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Correct. Curiouser and curiouser, don’t you think?
fossten on April 18, 2008 at 3:51 PM
And the name calling begins, just as I predicted.
fossten on April 18, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Ironic for a person who is about 40 years behind in theology and science.
Squid Shark on April 18, 2008 at 3:53 PM
What were some of the highlights for you?
ninjapirate on April 18, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Ed, your logic is weak and your conclusions highly questionable. Examples:
Because one can’t disprove a proposition, it must exist?
Disprove for me that a Victorian teapot orbits Mars. If you can’t, it must exist. Your lack of proof is all the proof I need. My lack of evidence for my position is transformed into evidence by your lack of evidence to the contrary. This is faulty logic.
Does Stein know the answer? If not, how is it amusing that intelligent men do not know either? Reading Dawkins’ own review of the film, it would seem that Dawkins himself brought forth the alien seeding hypothesis as an example equally as valid as God creating life. Since there is no evidence for either, both are equally valid and probable.
To quote Dawkins:
In closing, Ed, you seem to be under the same sort of delusion (or faith if you prefer) that since you want to believe in your God that your God must therefore exist. After all, since you must be intelligent, and you believe in God, all those who do not are mistaken and arguing from ignorance. In fact you are trying to justify your own ignorance (or Faith in God) by arguing that others are yet more ignorant and cannot offer proof that you are wrong in your faith.
I wouldn’t want to participate in a game of “Who’s dumber, me or you?” I’ll leave you to it.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on April 18, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Exactly. Ed’s bacteria example is Natural Selection within an existing gene pool, not Evolution from one species to another species. There is plenty of evidence of Natural Selection, there is no evidence of Evolution. Show me scientific proof of even a single DNA transition from one species to another species.
The very premise of the Theory of Evolution is contrary to
The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Red Pill on April 18, 2008 at 3:54 PM
You wouldn’t say that if you knew the facts. Actually, the more scientific discoveries, the more evolutionary scientists are left scratching their heads and the more Creationists are nodding their heads saying, “We told you so!”
You have about a thousand articles to read, though, to get caught up with me at the present time. Guess you’ll either get busy or just keep believing the stuff they feed you.
fossten on April 18, 2008 at 3:54 PM
If the secret of life was so simple that it could happen by accident, man would have learned the process centuries ago.
Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Perhaps, but it must also accept the processes and limitations of science as well, in order for it to be tolerated within the academic science community. Since the hallmark of ID is to deal with the incomprehensible by assuming a Designer, this is a very difficult standard to meet. In the end, its proponents make the same argument and the same mistake as Dawkins et al.; where Dawkins sees the improbability of God in the apparent complexity of the Universe, ID adherents consider the improbability of no God to be much greater. Niether of these is a very good argument.
Big S on April 18, 2008 at 3:55 PM
To late, you already called us sinners, arrogant.
The first part, when taken together is less plausable than the second. If you start it here:
You would be fine.
Squid Shark on April 18, 2008 at 3:58 PM
No it isn’t. Your perception of “order” is very different from the physical meaning of entropy. Also, you need to consider system boundaries.
Big S on April 18, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Oops! Excuse me for using science in making my case. I forgot that as a Christian I’m supposed to be anti-science.
/sarc
Red Pill on April 18, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Ive read most of your “articles” but not being a scientist, I will have to rely on those better trained.
I know a stinker when I see one though.
Squid Shark on April 18, 2008 at 4:00 PM
@ fossten on April 18, 2008 at 3:31 PM
I am sorry, but you are out of your mind. Evolutionists don’t debate ID’ers, because EVERY SINGLE ONE of the ID arguments have been disproven scientifically. There is no debate between evolution and ID. Gonna have to come up with a new theory, as both creationism and ID have failed. The earth has been proven to be older than 6000 years. Scientists are looking back in time at MOMENTS after the big bang. I understand the religious are fearful that the entire foundation of their church is about to be disproven by science, and therefore they attack science at every step instead of embrace it. BTW, YOU better be sure that ALL of the other religions are wrong as well, or you will be burning in a lake of fire. Remember, myself being an atheist, I believe in only 1 less religion than yourself. Good day.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 4:00 PM
I’m amused by HA readers who criticize intolerant global-warming absolutists, yet become intolerant evolution-is-a-proven-fact absolutists when confronted with ID.
jgapinoy on April 18, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Ok, show me how evolution happens in your view of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Provide scientific evidence of even a single DNA change from one species to another species.
Red Pill on April 18, 2008 at 4:02 PM
No dumbass, he said exactly what he meant. You can’t fucking read.
ninjapirate on April 18, 2008 at 4:02 PM
To those of you who think evolution says we came from monkeys, you obviously have not studied evolution. It does not say that. I challenge anyone to cite in Origin of Species where it says that.
Scientists refuse to debate creationism for the same reason they refuse to debate Santa Claus.
deewhybee on April 18, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Is that why so many skeptical, irreligious scientists embrace ID after investigating it?
jgapinoy on April 18, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Since even Methusala could not have lived long enough to see that happen…
Squid Shark on April 18, 2008 at 4:03 PM
The true idiot in a scientific argument can be identified by his juvenile debasement of someone asking serious questions of an unproven theory that has been accepted as fact by said idiot.
db on April 18, 2008 at 4:04 PM
I believe this is know as adaptation and not evolution.
But if you want to see real Evolution…
http://www.houstoncars.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/WindowsLiveWriter/aed669d02106_10B86/2007-mitsubishi-evo-IX%5B2%5D.jpg
MechEng5by5 on April 18, 2008 at 4:05 PM
I must admit Dawkins doesn’t come out looking good in the movie.
terryannonline on April 18, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Aare we talking about IDer or Evolution absolutists?
Squid Shark on April 18, 2008 at 4:06 PM
For the beginning of life, you must believe in pure accident. If there was no creative force, which is the evolutionist view, then “pure accident” is all that’s left, there is no getting around that.
Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Misquoting me. The Bible calls you a sinner. I didn’t write it. And I’m a sinner also, so we’re all in the same boat. If I said I had no sin, I would be arrogant. Your post is FAIL.
fossten on April 18, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 24 »