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 … 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 … 24 »
I wasn’t going to go there.
exception on April 19, 2008 at 2:42 AM
So to speak.
exception on April 19, 2008 at 2:42 AM
Hey, I don’t get to bash the Cowboys much anymore what with Bryan gone and it being baseball season now…
fiatboomer on April 19, 2008 at 2:43 AM
… until you expire.
(Couldn’t help myself)
theregoestheneighborhood on April 19, 2008 at 2:44 AM
I use the term because if I say Hellene people have no idea what I am talking about. Never mind that they cannot grasp that Athenian and other Hellene men had an average life-span of some 60+ years. And, I’ve given up discussing Heracles.
jdkchem on April 19, 2008 at 2:44 AM
hey, i’m not the double entendre poster around here, mr. greek
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 2:45 AM
How is requiring scientists to perform their job according to the scientific method persecution? How is it persecution to ask scientists to leave their faith at the door when they engage in something that by necessity has no spiritual or faith-based component? There can be scientists who are Christian, but there should not be “Christian scientists.” Regardless of their religious beliefs, they are scientists, and they have to follow the evidence, even if it suggests that God is not necessary. If God was necessary, the phrase “faith in God” would be as silly as the phrases “faith in evolution” or “faith in gravity” are now. There is no scientific proof for God, and you’re really going to hurt yourself if you try to make one.
Mark Jaquith on April 19, 2008 at 2:46 AM
No, I have no objection at all to the term Greek (and in fact, when people ask me “what do you do”, instead of answering “I’m a Byzantinist, I say “I study Mediaeval Greek.”). Do go ahead and use it by all means, mehercle!
What I do object to is theologians, who open their Greek dictionaries with all ten thumbs, pontificating about what they think they see in “the original Greek”.
(P.S. I always say Hercules. I mean, Hercules in a Western text is rendered in Greek as Ἡρακλῆς, so why shouldn’t Ἡρακλῆς , going the other way, be made Hercules?)
Tzetzes on April 19, 2008 at 2:50 AM
No Christian Scientists?
Tzetzes on April 19, 2008 at 2:53 AM
(one thousand one hundred and) First!
Have you ever seen the big Christian Science complex in Boston? It’s a big ole place.
exception on April 19, 2008 at 2:55 AM
Mark,
You’re missing the whole point of the movie…that BECAUSE evolution is not compatible with the scientific method..they get many dissenters.
And those dissenters are criticized,ostracized,denied tenure, even jailed!
There is all this intimidation. Promote the non scientific theory of evolution or your career is over!
Many scientists are now using I.D. in their experiments but do not mention that fact, in order to save their careers.
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 2:56 AM
I feel like I should see this damn movie now.
exception on April 19, 2008 at 2:57 AM
Well, I know a lot of old people will be glad to see a cure for I.D.
Tzetzes on April 19, 2008 at 2:59 AM
I had a chemistry professor who stated quite emphatically that our crawling out of the ooze was extremely improbable. He did not say who, what or how, only that there was some unseen “influence.”
As for muyoso who seems to believe that because you have not observed something, 30 ft. monsters, that they do not exist. You may want to introduce yourself to Schroedinger’s cat. Until I actually look under the bed there may very well be a 30 ft. monster. And when I do look under the bed and see no 30 ft. monster does not mean that it wasn’t there, only that at the time I looked under the bed there was no 30 ft. monster. To claim that science does not involve some amount of faith is absolute stupidity.
jdkchem on April 19, 2008 at 2:59 AM
so when the Church persecuted Copernicus, that was wrong, but when Academics persecute a scientist who dares believe his studies show (prove) a higher order, then that is ok?
There is nothing wrong with demanding scientific rigor with regard to proof, but that isn’t what is happening…
it’s more the “don’t even go there” school of thought that is the issue here.
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 3:02 AM
I am a PhD research scientist in molecular biology and I can confirm that there is in fact intellectual Stalinism in the research science world, and the movie is pretty much right on in its characterization of it. I won’t even sign on with this account at my lab because of it.
The circles of influence that a scientist must interact with can be very small, which means that if you talk openly about raising questions about Darwinism, you can forget about ever getting grants funded even if the research is scientifically sound and not related to intelligent design in anyway. I certainly don’t plan on talking about it until I have an established job.
Dilophos on April 19, 2008 at 3:08 AM
It’s all Greek to me!
A personal preference but Hercules sounds rather crude.
jdkchem on April 19, 2008 at 3:09 AM
If and when the time ever comes that crackpot “global warming” theories are welcomed into the scientific community, then, and only then, should crackpot “intelligent design” theories be allowed in.
Not a moment sooner.
MB4 on April 19, 2008 at 3:09 AM
Well, “day” can certainly be used allegorically to refer to a period of time, but I’ve yet to see someone explain why, if “day” is used allegorically, Genesis 1 says of each of the six days of creation, “and the evening and the morning were the first [second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth] day”
Which leads to my question: IF “day” is used allegorically, what is the allegorical meaning of “evening” and “morning?” Why would the phrase be repeated for every day, if not to emphasize actual, rather than allegorical, days?
Now, if you’re a Christian, the issue is almost boring. An omnipotent God Who is eternal is not bound by time, and could just as easily do the work of creation in a single day as in 6.
People get hung up on it because it’s obvious that evolution does not occur on that kind of scale today, or we would be able to observe the evolution of a new species every generation or so at least. Therefore, evolution must be an excruciatingly slow process. It’s the only possible explanation for everything having evolved, but no one today ever being able to actually observe that evolution.
And no, minor adaptation to the environment does not count as one species evolving into another.
I’ve seen many people try to reconcile evolution and creation by saying God created everything by the use of evolution. That seems somewhat plausible, given that the Bible tell us nothing of the actual process used by God to create.
But if you’re going to try to reconcile not just creation and evolution, but the Biblical account of creation and the current scientific theory of evolution, you’re going to tie yourself into knots.
For me, it’s no problem. Given the extreme unlikeliness of life spontaneously organizing itself into more advanced life forms, and the extreme improbability of such occurring by random mutations, I see a real dilemma for evolution. If I believe in evolution, I must almost of necessity believe in a force that has the power to cause evolution and the intelligence to direct it. Such a powerful and intelligent force would be much greater than me, so would have to be a person. And at that point I find I’m looking for … God.
But the reverse is not true. Evolution would lead me to believe in God, but a belief in God makes a belief in evolution completely unnecessary.
So it’s only the believer in God who would have the scientific detachment to examine the subject of evolution, since his world view will not be disturbed either way.
Obviously, then, no atheist is qualified to speak on evolution, since they can’t be impartial about it.
Now pardon me while I get another cup of coffee, then solve the problem of peace in the Middle East.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 19, 2008 at 3:16 AM
Don’t you ever again say anything attested in Ovid sounds crude.
Tzetzes on April 19, 2008 at 3:17 AM
Is the present day “scientific community” a result of devolution or of unintelligent design?
That is the question.
MB4 on April 19, 2008 at 3:17 AM
jdkchem on April 19, 2008 at 3:17 AM
Heracles has a more dignified sound, it flows, has beauty.
Hercules is like trying to woo a woman in German.
jdkchem on April 19, 2008 at 3:21 AM
damn, i’ll have to go soon… metalocalypse is on…
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 3:22 AM
Another great testimony!
We are being lied to about our history!
Now, what are the fruits of the evolutionists lies?
85% of kids who grow up in a Christian home and go to a public school end up leaving Christianity by the time they are in 12th grade!
When asked about why they left…they say “Because science disproves the Bible.”
Is anyone here foolish enough to debate that this is anything but the work of the anti-Christ spirit?
I have already proven that evolution was a part of sumerian theology and that the sumerians were known followers of the fallen angels.
Satan has always been the father of lies!
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 3:22 AM
On the other hand, there is Punctuated Equilibrium:
“Instead of a slow, continuous movement, “evolution”tends to be characterized by long periods of virtual standstill (”equilibrium”), “punctuated” by episodes of very fast development of new forms. The “punctuated equilibrium” theory of Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould was proposed as a criticism of the traditional Darwinian theory of evolution.
Eldredge and Gould observed that “evolution” tends to happen in fits and starts, sometimes moving very fast, sometimes moving very slowly or not at all. On the other hand, typical variations tend to be small. Therefore, Darwin saw evolution as a slow, continuous process, without sudden jumps.
However, if you study the fossils of organisms
found in subsequent geological layers, you will see long intervals in which nothing changed (”equilibrium”), “punctuated” by short, revolutionary transitions, in which species became extinct and replaced by wholly new forms. Instead of a slow, continuous progression, the “evolution” of life on Earth seems more like the life of a soldier: long periods of boredom interrupted by rare moments of terror.
MB4 on April 19, 2008 at 3:24 AM
Greed, publish or perish, kneepads, and nose firmly planted between the right pair of cheeks.
jdkchem on April 19, 2008 at 3:27 AM
What, you don’t like German wooing? It’s worth the effort, my friend. Beautiful girls (stereotypes notwithstanding) and very smart (in intelligence and in dress).
Next best thing, if you can’t find a Dutch girl.
Tzetzes on April 19, 2008 at 3:28 AM
MB4 on April 19, 2008 at 3:24 AM
Though evolution has been disproven long ago(specifically since advanced DNA research and molecular biology)….most people have never learned that it’s been disproven because of the staliist like intimidation and censorship going on in the “Scientific” community.
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 3:30 AM
I have seen this phenomenon before. People who are barely able to read Greek at all will take a Greek text and a Greek lexicon, see a Greek word listed in the lexicon with a different meaning than how it’s translated in the Bible verse they’re looking at, and jump to the conclusion that the translation is wrong, because their expert reference, the lexicon, says something different.
Which is to say, when I hear someone talk about what a word really means “in the original Greek,” I tend towards skepticism.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 19, 2008 at 3:30 AM
Thou dost well, my friend.
And now, as Olaf, our relative saint, is getting even more repetitive than usual, I’m off to bed. (It’s EST and it’s late.)
Tzetzes on April 19, 2008 at 3:37 AM
Darwin believed in a slow and continuous process because of uniformitarianism, the idea that everything there is came into being through the exact same processes that are occurring today.
“Punctuated equilibrium” is a heresy against uniformitarianism. It’s a remarkable idea because it a) completely contradicts the single biggest framework used to theorize about all geological and evolutionary processes up to that point, uniformitarianism, b) at least appears to match the nature of the actual fossil record, which does not show evidence of a continuous and gradual process, and c) has not exactly been adopted with wide-open arms by the scientific community.
Of course, there are a couple of problems with it. For one thing, no one has ever shown any proof that it occurred. The best evidence for it is the lack of evidence for a continuous and gradual process of evolution. For another thing, no one has been able to demonstrate why all of a sudden evolution would just spontaneously kick into high gear. Punctuated equilibrium looks suspiciously like an attempt to explain how evolution happened in the past without being able to demonstrate or prove it is happening now. The concept has also been mocked as the “Hopeful Monster” theory of evolution: that one day a reptile gives birth to a mammal, or a (a bit more realistically) Eohippus one day gives birth to Mesohippus, which one day gives birth to an actual horse.
It is interesting, though probably coincidental, that punctuated equilibrium almost echoes the idea of God creating everything in 6 distinct days.
BTW, for another eerie echo of Bible and science: scientists doing genetic research have determined that every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth is descended from a single woman. They called her, Eve, for obvious reasons.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 19, 2008 at 3:55 AM
No coffee. Better go to bed. Shame. I was just about to fix the Middle East peace process. Now Jimmy Carter’s going to get in there and muck it all up.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 19, 2008 at 3:57 AM
I am a heretic!
And that is why it along with all else is, or should be anyway, called a theory, of course.
“Punctuated equilibrium”, of course does not go for change that rapid as something could have both mammalian and reptile characteristics. James Carville would be an excellent example of that.
She was single? That is so shameful. It makes us all bastards.
MB4 on April 19, 2008 at 4:07 AM
On a more serious note, so they think that they have been able to determine that she [this loose woman] had no sisters or that any sisters she had, had no children or if any did none of her descendants are now alive?
MB4 on April 19, 2008 at 4:18 AM
Hmm. I feel torn here: on the one hand, science should be about enquiry and listening to rational, serious arguments. If someone wants to advance the notion of Intelligent Design scientifically, my initial feeling is they should be heard.
On the other hand, Intelligent Design is palpable nonsense, and anyone who believes in it is away with the fairies. At the very least, it is a matter of ‘faith,’ not science, because it is not something you can measure or quantify or back up in any way through empirical means. In short, it is a belief system.
So what do you do?
Controversially, I’m all for ostracising these nuts who believe in ID. That’s not a politically correct thing to say, but it is the rational thing to do. People promote ID not because they hope to discover the truth (which is the goal of science), but because they want to impose their ‘truth’ on other people. In short, they have an agenda. An agenda to promote a religious world-view, no less.
Sorry guys, but I say wreck their careers. Ostracise them. Let them end up working in Walmart stacking shelves. There’s no place for that kind of thinking in the modern-day, enlightened world. The Dark Ages went out of fashion long ago …
Does that make me evil? Am I being unfair? Maybe. Honestly, it goes against the grain to say these things. But it boils down to this: if people want to promote Intelligent Design, they should not be allowed to do so under the mantle of science. That’s like a drug company scientifically reviewing its own drug products and giving them a glowing review. If you really want to examine ID scientifically, you should let independent scientists do the work, not use science as a tool to promote your own world view.
dcpolwarth on April 19, 2008 at 4:23 AM
I don’t get it. How would they do that?
MB4 on April 19, 2008 at 4:23 AM
Well they can’t be any crazier than Al Gore that’s for sure.
MB4 on April 19, 2008 at 4:25 AM
How about using the scientific method? Instead of sticking fingers in ears and doing the “La la la la la! I can’t hear you!” bit, simply subject their work on the subject to peer review. If there’s nothing there, just show that, and they lose. If there were as much effort put into that as there is into ad hom attacks and creating academic obstacles, we could all move on without all the screaming.
Declaring the debate over and shunning anyone who says otherwise is what’s brought us AGW hysteria.
Pablo on April 19, 2008 at 4:33 AM
Although I myself believe in evolution as probably correct (in a “Punctuated equilibrium” slant probably), the “scientific community” by largely endorsing Al Gore and his apocalyptic global warming/case-is-closed claims has lost a lot of credibility to endorse or debunk anything.
MB4 on April 19, 2008 at 4:36 AM
Bingo.
MB4 on April 19, 2008 at 4:38 AM
Dang.
I was off by a factor of ‘2′.
And counting…..
locomotivebreath1901 on April 19, 2008 at 6:49 AM
But … but … MAN created AlGorbal Warming!!!
Think about that for a few minutes and only 1 fact will prevail. Both Evolution and AlGorbal Warming are theories created by man.
DannoJyd on April 19, 2008 at 7:09 AM
Saw it last night. Have to admit we were more impressed than we’d expected to be.
The animations showing the inner workings of the cell may not have the absolute best technical rendering - who knows what stuff THAT small looks like anyway? - but are astounding nonetheless.
For me, the best part was where Ben Stein pretty much herds Richard Dawkins into admitting (tho Dawkins and Dawkbots will deny it) that his notions are as faith-based as any of the religions he hates. He looks absolutely ridiculous at this point, and his evident discomfort shows he knew it. No doubt evolutionists will be smacking their foreheads over that, as well as the “crystal guy,” who appears to be a lunatic. Both are glaring examples of the modern Romans 1 mind at work.
The despair of the Christian-turned-evolutionist with the brain tumor is poignant, and his closing words are possibly the most powerful part of the whole flick.
I’d feared the Darwinism/Nazism angle would be overplayed and so would be the death of the movie. However, I found the tone of that segment was very to-the-point and factual. It didn’t hit you over the head with it, and so was just right and perfectly appropriate to the film. Darwinism, not wrenched from its moorings but logically, consistently applied, led exactly to the German “insane asylum” Ben tours.
One mistake I hope Bible-only believers don’t make is jumping on yet another bandwagon with this. They did it with Passion of the Christ, which presents many unbiblical and antibiblical elements as biblical. ID folks generally are not creationists in any sense, as the movie goes out of its way to point out. So just because someone is ID does not mean they believe or even know the Gospel; many of them have no doubt heard and rejected it. Stein himself is a Gospel rejector. But watch: many ignorant Christians, of all denominational labels, will assume otherwise. I just hope the ones like them, who are forever craving any media confirmation of their beliefs (even perceived confirmation that isn’t actually there), keep that in mind. They won’t tho…I’m just waiting for the first reports of people being saved as a result of seeing the film.
All in all, very much worth seeing and owning on DVD. At least I plan to.
splink on April 19, 2008 at 7:12 AM
SaintOlaf has it covered.
The infestation of academia by the anti-capitalist, anti-Christian weak-minded left is complete.
Zorro on April 19, 2008 at 7:56 AM
This thread has proven one scientific fact:
Opinions really are like A holes, and everybody has one.
Hening on April 19, 2008 at 8:01 AM
In other words, the evolution scientists…just made the whole thing up!
Brilliant! And typical.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 8:02 AM
Here’s a little more background, “Triumph of the medieval mind” from Nature.
Zorro on April 19, 2008 at 8:11 AM
Maybe it was the uncontrolled emotional outbursts…?
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 8:14 AM
Here’s one more article of interest.
Zorro on April 19, 2008 at 8:18 AM
As expected - if there is a signal in this thread, it is wholly consumed by the noise. I couldn’t make it through p1.
I only add to it to say, thanks Ed, terryann & babynurse (people who actually saw the movie). Enrique, back on p1 you said you “wrote a review” of the movie and then typed:
Was your nonexistent credibility ever important to you? I am a huge fan of Ben Stein, and making the smug people’s heads explode is a wonderful, worthwhile effort. Can’t wait to see it tomorrow.
rhodeymark on April 19, 2008 at 9:00 AM
The scientists who create biotech companies are anti-capitalist? Better tell the VC firms that invest in them.
dedalus on April 19, 2008 at 9:05 AM
PC science silenced all theology except Darwinism. Now it will silence all climatology except Gorebull warming.
Thanks, Ben. Yours is noble work.
petefrt on April 19, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Dude, you’re in for a rude awakening. One day you’ll have to face Jesus and account for every single word you’ve spoken, including calling Him a zombie.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 9:09 AM
Shouldn’t she be called the wife of Noah?
DaveC on April 19, 2008 at 9:28 AM
…and now banking on 1200.
Allah, remember this. Fred Thompson and evolution/ID are winning topics. Hell, you should just make a topic about both and get 2000 comments.
MadisonConservative on April 19, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Well said
maynila on April 19, 2008 at 9:48 AM
And that is where your false arrogance goes astray…assuming they have not…if you only knew…
And because you and others have a hard time understanding simple terms like “original Greek”, I will use the term “original text”. Would that help you and others to understand?
It’s like saying to someone, “the day started out great”, and you come back and say, “at precisely what time was it great, do you mean the start of the day, or the rising of the sun, or do you mean daybreak…I am always suspicious of people who say “start of the day”, they may mean when they arise, or when they start work…”, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
It is so difficult to speak to people who think they are intelligent, their minds keep getting in the way of their thoughts.
right2bright on April 19, 2008 at 9:58 AM
You could have saved us time by just linking where you learned this information 10 minutes before you posted it.
Here
It’s called plagiarism, you should try to be more descreet when you try to become “knowledgable”.
right2bright on April 19, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Good morning all. Nice to see the thread hit such a high number. After BSG last night, I was going to come down and jump back in, but Dr. Who grabbed me instead.
This thread, and all the topics within, did provide for some great talk with my husband during the commercials, though. I might go to a matinee of the movie today.
the goddess anna on April 19, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Most people know that the Bible starts with the following:
But many people do not know that Genesis is not the only book in the Bible that starts with “In the beginning“. Take a look at the book of John:
If you do not understand who “the Word” is, try reading more of the first chapter of the book of John. (Hint: the Word became flesh and dwelt among us)
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 10:16 AM
If you beleive in Darwinian “origin of species”, i.e. an atheist. Then why do you care about this topic to reply so much?
with this worldview, of life beginning by pure chance and randomness, then your life has no MEANING or Purpose. because chance/randomness has no meaning. therefore, what difference does it make if the ID crowd have their say? there is no ultimate truth and meaning to life, so whats the point?
jp on April 19, 2008 at 10:35 AM
1) Please explain the how you think the Passion of the Christ “presented many unbiblical and antibiblical elements as biblical”.
2) I would expect that most Christians support ID, but I don’t for a second expect all ID supporters to creationists or Christians. ID supporters simply realize that the observed complexity could not be the result of chance and is instead evidence of Intelligent Design.
3) Could some people be saved as a result of this movie? It is quite possible. When someone sees the evidence for Intelligent Design, they may start seeking the Designer/Creator.
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Clarification:
I don’t for a second expect all ID supporters to be creationists or Christians.
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Ding! FINALLY, the truth has been told. The people in academia ARE the new Nazis. They suppress free speech. They stamp out freedom of religion. They are no better than Achmed the dead terrorist — who shouts to anyone that disagrees with him:
C’mon collie. Were takin’ the pick-up truck to the gun shop.
My collie says:
D*mn straight. We have to be prepared to give the evolutionists a welcome that is worthy of a Muslim extremist. After all, you and I are just bitter, gun-slinging, Bible totin’ hicks that possess antipathy for the Nazis of academia.
CyberCipher on April 19, 2008 at 10:46 AM
I’ve read about half of the comments here and have one question.
If evolution is our planets inhabitants evolving, why would they not evolve to whatever the climate changes to?
Farmer62 on April 19, 2008 at 10:49 AM
No.
The wives of Shem, Ham, and Japheth were descended from Eve, but not necessarily (and not likely) descended from Noah’s wife. While it is clear that Adam and Eve had both sons and daughters…
…and those children married each other, there is no evidence that Shem, Ham, and Japheth were married to their sisters. So calling that common ancestor “Eve”, not “the wife of Noah”, is accurate
To answer another question…
Where did Cain get his wife? He married his sister.
Inbreeding in animals and in humans increases the chance of genetic defects being present in both sets of genes. Genetic defects in general have increased with time (consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics). When God created Adam and Eve, their genes were perfect, and there was no problem with Adam and Eve’s sons marrying Adam and Eve’s daughters.
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Brilliant question.
:-)
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Sorry Red Pill..
trying to be a smart ass. :)
DaveC on April 19, 2008 at 11:27 AM
the analogy that occurred to me regarding someone who’s knowledge/education had exceeded their intelligence is that it’s like having a shiny new Porsche 911 with all the perks and then opening the hood to find a lawnmower engine inside…
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 11:29 AM
the new Who is pretty good… although i really liked the long scarf version from back in the day
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 11:36 AM
What exactly is “intelligent” about a “design” ehich squanders billions and trillions of lives to result in one survival, and which includes the spontaneous abortion of human fetuses, “natually”, by the millions every year, and which is built upon the predatation of helpless life by the more ruthless and cunning for of life?
“Cruel” “design” would be a more appropriate counter-argument to “intelligent” “design” than attacking Darwinian evolution’s flaws.
How do the “intelligent” “design” supporters square the cold facts of this wasteful, amoral and bloodthirsty plan with a compassionate “creator”?
By inject a convenient “devil” (also created by said “creator“) as the “maker’s” loophole?
“God” makes more sense as the endpoint of creation, not its initiation.
Rising from unconsciousness to consciousness through an increasing realization of its brutal nature.
Twain’s novella “The Mysterious Stranger” brings all of these objections to “intelligence” to light artfully.
Worth a read.
profitsbeard on April 19, 2008 at 11:57 AM
@ Farmer62 on April 19, 2008 at 10:49 AM
They have. Polar bears for example.
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 11:59 AM
@ jp on April 19, 2008 at 10:35 AM
You dont know the definition of evolution, so stop t alking on the subject. You completely summarized it wrong. Go away.
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 12:00 PM
1160 Comments? I’m sorry I completely missed this thread.
aengus on April 19, 2008 at 12:01 PM
I’m way too young to have watched that incarnation, but I guess I’m lucky enough to know the scarf reference. Doctor number 7, I think.
Red Pill, you’ve brought up something that I’ve wondered about for years. Incest obviously was both needed and condoned early in the Bible, but later it became taboo. The people of the Bible did not have knowledge of genetics, either. What is the proof that Adam and Eve’s genes were pure? And if they were pure, what caused them to mutate and cause defects? Sin? But if it was sin, then Adam and Eve’s genes would have been tainted too, as they sinned and brought death (and painful childbirth, at least until the epidural was invented) into this world.
the goddess anna on April 19, 2008 at 12:01 PM
@ fossten on April 19, 2008 at 9:09 AM
No, one day you will have to account to Allah, and account for every word you have spoken. See what I did there? I showed you how ridiculous you are for thinking you are the only true religion when there are hundreds out there. And either way, you wont have to account for anything you have said or done, because worms and maggots dont care about those kinds of things. You will make some Grade A plant food though, so you can be proud of that.
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 12:04 PM
This has been my argument for years.
Branch Rickey on April 19, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Agree you Hening!
Branch Rickey on April 19, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Do you even understand what you post?
Branch Rickey on April 19, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Saw the movie last night in San Diego. It was more impressive than I thought it would be. If you haven’t seen it for yourself yet, it’s playing in over 1000 theaters nationwide, so get out there and check it out yourself.
davenp35 on April 19, 2008 at 12:17 PM
you mean stop posting and… go… outside?
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 12:19 PM
I know plenty about evolution. that micro-evolution or adaptive evolution within a species is true and has been observed.
the problem is with macro-evolution, i.e. one species randomly turning into a completely different species. it has never been observed and is mathematically impossible at that.
clip on that from the movie http://youtube.com/watch?v=zn57wbVZrTo
jp on April 19, 2008 at 12:27 PM
That’ll shut em up!
sweeper on April 19, 2008 at 12:27 PM
My local paper showed the ad on Thursday for the movie to open on Friday. The paper stated; check your local listings. Guess what. It is not in any of the theaters on the Monterey Peninsula. Wonder why? Earth worshippers have taken over. The Earth is now our alter and Catholics screw with young boys. I hate my newspaper the Monterrey Herald.
geminicontender on April 19, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Typical. You throw out ad hominem attacks, offer no evidentiary basis, and attempt censorship by way of bullying.
Exactly what the movie is about.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 12:47 PM
wow, do you find you have to choke up a little when you swing that broad brush or are you so practiced as to be able to just use one arm?
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Wow, this thread has been taken over by crazy Bible-quoting Stalinists! I’ll leave y’all to go about crushing all dissent with your infallible divine wisdom.
By the by, global warming is based on false premises. It assumes feedback loops and simplified models for climate data. It also adds bad measurements to the mix, which you can research on Coyote Blog and other sites documenting the sources of temperature data. Evolution as a theory rests on it being the only possible alternative to some sort of supernatural origin for life and the present state of organisms.
The true argument is over the existence or lack thereof of some divine being or force. Since I cannot put stock in the divine, I have to turn to evolution for my explanation of the origin of myself.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on April 19, 2008 at 12:56 PM
ROFL - Thanks! I needed that! :^D
Branch Rickey on April 19, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Excellent jp, thanks!
Branch Rickey on April 19, 2008 at 1:01 PM
“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.”
Does this sound familiar anyone? Man Made Global Warming perhaps?
The dificulties with both ID and MMGW are that they do not follow the scientific method. They start with a precondition and work backwards to observation. Science, as a process of investigation, does not work that way.
percysunshine on April 19, 2008 at 1:03 PM
if I choose to watch the “Shot at Love with Tila Tequila” marathon instead of the Stanley Cup playoffs, would that tend to prove or disprove the Theory of Evolution?
Perhaps I just need more coffee… I may try the Fry approach and do the 100 cups of coffee putting my brain in hyperdrive approach…
decisions decisions…
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 1:11 PM
“if I choose to watch the “Shot at Love with Tila Tequila” marathon instead of the Stanley Cup playoffs, would that tend to prove or disprove the Theory of Evolution?”
Ask your DNA if they are happy with your decision…chuckle
percysunshine on April 19, 2008 at 1:15 PM
This is why the web is so great…
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 1:17 PM
sun’s up, i went with the Cup
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Bravo!
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Those who can’t handle the truth try to silence those who speak it.
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 1:56 PM
FunkyChicken - spreading Campylobacter with every insipid post. You clucked up again this time. For a “reality based” comparison, stick this in your beak. Which side literally controls the right to publish in either case? Warmers and Darwinists, end of story. Look up the history of the journal Nature - why did it even come into being?
Promote leftist Darwinism you say? Ding ding ding…
rhodeymark on April 19, 2008 at 1:59 PM
You people are ALL nuts.
Cant we at least agree that anybody who believes the story of a global flood and a guy grabbing two of every species to put on his boat to save all the animals….is a certifiable loon?
Roger Waters on April 19, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Comment pages: « 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 … 24 »