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 … 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 … 24 »
Kudos on an excellent post.
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 8:53 PM
The Bible actually spoke of a revolving,spherical earth!
Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously
The Bible also taught that the sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity – the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit – just as the Bible stated thousands of years ago!
The Bible(which is the oldest book ever) also spoke of:
DNA(Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.”)
Atoms(Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes) Hebrews 11:3 and many other discoveries attributed to others thousands of years later!
Black holes and Dark Matter (Matthew 25:30; Jude 1:13; Isaiah 50:3)
How would the Bible know these things if it was not written by God?
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 8:54 PM
Nautiloids to Ammonoids
*
o Bactritids
[edit] Fish to Amphibians
*
o Tiktaalik roseae
o Osteolepis
o Eusthenopteron
o Panderichthys
o Elginerpeton
o Obruchevichthys
o Hynerpeton
o Tulerpeton
o Acanthostega
o Ichthyostega
o Pederpes finneyae
o Eryops
[edit] Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles)
*
o Proterogyrinus
o Limnoscelis
o Tseajaia
o Solenodonsaurus
o Hylonomus
o Paleothyris
[edit] Synapsid (mammal-like “reptiles”) to mammals
*
o Protoclepsydrops
o Clepsydrops
o Dimetrodon
o Morganucodon
o Procynosuchus
o Thrinaxodon
o Yanoconodon
[edit] Diapsid reptiles to birds
*
o Yixianosaurus
o Pedopenna
o Archaeopteryx
o Changchengornis
o Confuciusornis
o Ichthyornis
[edit] Evolution of whales
*
o Pakicetus
o Ambulocetus
o Kutchicetus
o Artiocetus
o Aetiocetus
o Dorudon
o Basilosaurus
o Eurhinodelphis
o Mammalodon
[edit] Evolution of the horse
The Hyracotherium → Equus Evolutionary Series
Taxa Relationship Status Description Image
Genus:
* Hyracotherium
Genus:
* Mesohippus
Genus:
* Parahippus
Genus:
* Merychippus
Genus:
* Pliohippus
Genus:
* Equus
[edit] Non-human apes to modern humans
*
o Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
o Ardipithecus
o Australopithecus
o Homo rudolfensis
o Homo habilis
o Homo erectus
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 8:54 PM
ronsfi,
I don’t think Wikipedia’s an authority on Biblical exegesis.
As to the rest, I was making the point that there were brilliant men who were Christians. In my opinion it was not a matter of cultural conditioning.
INC on April 19, 2008 at 8:55 PM
If I remember correctly from microbiology class, the bacteria is still the same species. It doesn’t evolve into another species just because it builds up a resistance.
Very intelligent and insightful post. You sound like one of those “evolved” conservatives. Your repeated accusations of “your kind” tells us everything we need to know about you.
I’m not Christian but I don’t get upset about this subject because if you’re really honest with yourself both arguments take a lot of faith to believe in. Christians aren’t asking for evolution not to be taught, just that intelligent design is a possibility.
kongzilla on April 19, 2008 at 8:58 PM
What does the bible say about quantum mechanics or say the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. How about something rudimentary like, Euclidean Geometry? Simple Math?
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 8:59 PM
The Bible also foretold the teaching of pseudo scientific theory of evolution!
The Bible also foretold the also pseudo scientific pagan religion of global warming
The Bible also taught the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God – resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is “grow(ing) old like a garment” (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 9:00 PM
A little name calling?
Johan Klaus on April 19, 2008 at 9:00 PM
Up over 1300 Comments in the 30 hours since Ed made this post. I’m glad to see the debate here. This is quite possibly the most important HotAir thread EVAH.
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Kudos an a superb post!
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 9:05 PM
I object.
If something is a LIE..you do not teach it as fact.
People are just now figuring out that they have been lying and supressing any information disproving it?
If they have been lying to us about the non scientific state religion of evolution/secular humanism….why on earth would anybody in their right mind…continue to think of it as fact.
It is 100% non scientific!
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 9:06 PM
I never misrepresented Davies’ writings. He gets credit as one of the first proponents of Darwinian evolution to actually seriously consider the role of “information” in the origin of life. Ultimately the question is not the origin of the “material stuff”, as Davies put it, but the origin of the “information” that directed the energy to organize that “stuff”. The answer to that question is only unclear to those who refuse to acknowledge the existence of a higher intelligence.
labrat on April 19, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Galaxy Song
Just remember that you’re standing
On a planet that’s evolving,
And revolving at 900 miles an hour,
That’s orbiting at 19 miles a second,
So it’s reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me
And all the stars that we can see,
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm,
At 40 000 miles and hour,
Of the Galaxy we call the Milky Way.
Our Galaxy itself
Contains 100 billion stars
It’s 100 000 light years side by side,
It bulges in the middle,
16 000 light years thick
But out by us it’s just 3 000 light years wide.
We’re 30 000 light years
From galactic central point,
We go round every 200 million years
And our galaxy is only
One of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding Universe.
As fast as it can go,
At the speed of light you know,
12 million miles a minute,
And that’s the fastest speed there is.
So remember when you’re feeling
Very small and insecure
How amazingly unlikely is your birth
And pray that there’s intelligent
Life somewhere up in space
Because there’s bugger all down here on Earth.
Beto Ochoa on April 19, 2008 at 9:08 PM
Jesus said He is the truth.
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Wrong again Olaf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
e-pirate on April 19, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Carl Sagan now knows if God exist.
Johan Klaus on April 19, 2008 at 9:17 PM
No my arguments don’t require faith. At all. As far as what you “need to know” about me, Passive aggressives are pussies.
I believe it was Darwin who said, (and I could be wrong), “Individuals do not evolve, populations do,”
Intelligent Design is con job. Creationism disguised as pseudo-science.
I don’t mind faith or religion. I think it CAN be a tremendous force for good, as well as evil. Many great minds have contributed to the cannon, ideas and philosophies which form the foundation of western civilization. It’s just when you guys make outrageous, unsupported claims based on superstition, and disparage one the greatest minds in history, I take umbrage.
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 9:18 PM
I appreciate that you don’t believe in evolution, but the nature of science is figuring out how stuff works. Where the scientific community has gone wrong is saying it is the only way or as Dawkins says, alien lifeforms could have been responsible. No matter what you believe it takes faith because it’s something that can’t be observed in action.
kongzilla on April 19, 2008 at 9:18 PM
Meh. A lot.
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 9:20 PM
I could be wrong, but didn’t Darwin become a Christian.
Johan Klaus on April 19, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 9:24 PM
e-pirate,
No you are wrong. Gilgamesh was not older than the Bible and specifically was not older than the book of enoch.
Enoch was a pre-flood book…gilgamesh was second hand stories written well after the flood.
The ark written about in gilgamesh is a second or third hand version of the true ark of Noah’s flood.
The ark in gilgamesh is not even seaworthy…. but guess what…. the ark of Noah was seaworthy!
Let me guess….who told you the book of gilgamesh was older? The same scientists who have been proven to supress information and even jail scientists who dissent from their non scientific state religion?
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 9:27 PM
You wouldn’t know what was “scientific” if it crawled up your ass and bit your liver.
Heres a “Fact” Science does not deal in “facts”. Evolution is not taught as a “fact” but as “accepted science”. Facts are for Dragnet.
Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
I don’t see faith there anywhere. hmm
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 9:27 PM
There have been a lot of “Why does god hate…” questions posted. Your starting premise is wrong…
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Ronsfi,
Do you think you are a soul?
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 9:29 PM
THE LADY HOPE “STORY”
- A RE-EXAMINATION
Many creationists are familiar with the account that a “Lady Hope” gave of her visit to Darwin a few months before he died. Although it has appeared in various books, we present it below for those to whom it is new.
…………………..
It was one of those glorious autumn afternoons, that we sometimes enjoy in England, when I was asked to go in and sit with the well known professor, Charles Darwin. He was almost bedridden for some months before he died. I used to feel when I saw him that his fine presence would make a grand picture for our Royal Academy; but never did I think so more strongly than on this particular occasion.
He was sitting up in bed, wearing a soft embroidered dressing gown, of rather a rich purple shade.
Propped up by pillows, he was gazing out on a far-stretching scene of woods and cornfields, which glowed in the light of one of those marvelous sunsets which are the beauty of Kent and Surrey. His noble forehead and fine features seem to be lit up with pleasure as I entered the room.
He waved his hand toward the window as he pointed out the scene beyond, while in the other hand he held an open Bible, which he was always studying.
“What are you reading now?” I asked as I seated myself beside his bedside. “Hebrews!” he answered - “still Hebrews. ‘The Royal Book’ I call it. Isn’t it grand?”
Then, placing his finger on certain passages, he commented on them.
I made some allusions to the strong opinions expressed by many persons on the history of the Creation, its grandeur, and then their treatment of the earlier chapters of the Book of Genesis.
He seemed greatly distressed, his fingers twitched nervously, and a look of agony came over his face as he said: “I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.”
Then he paused, and after a few more sentences on “the holiness of God” and the “grandeur of this book,” looking at the Bible which he was holding tenderly all the time, he suddenly said: “I have a summer house in the garden which holds about thirty people. It is over there,” pointing through the open window. “I want you very much to speak there. I know you read the Bible in the villages. To-morrow afternoon I should like the servants on the place, some tenants and a few of the neighbours; to gather there. Will you speak to them?”
“What shall I speak about?” I asked.
“Christ Jesus!” he replied in a clear, emphatic voice, adding in a lower tone, “and his salvation. Is not that the best theme? And then I want you to sing some hymns with them. You lead on your small instrument, do you not?” The wonderful look of brightness and animation on his face as he said this I shall never forget, for he added: “If you take the meeting at three o’clock this window will be open, and you will know that I am joining in with the singing.”
How I wished I could have made a picture of the fine old man and his beautiful surroundings on that memorable day!
……………….
This is the account that appeared on the 19th August 1915 in the Baptist “Watchman-Examiner” in Washington D.C. (Q29/2:70). In 1922, friends in Los Angeles who knew her wrote an affidavit (L.A. affidavit) (MooreJ:79). In 1940, Prof Bole released a letter he had received from her in the early 1920’s (Bole letter) (MooreJ:86). These repeated most of the above account with some minor variations and additions, and we will refer to these later.
If he did fine. That is not an issue. He did not become an ID cultist.
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 9:30 PM
I can’t believe that your argument is “the ark wasn’t seaworthy” as if the ark containing every animal is unquestionable.
If you don’t like Gilgamesh, well then dude take your pick.
Want to discount all of them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_literature
And to address the other conspiracy driven part of your post, perhaps you can cite a legitimate story about even ONE example of scientists being jailed for dissenting?
Here’s an example of the reverse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
e-pirate on April 19, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Ronsfi,
Do you think you are a soul?
Is that a no?
Maybe you’re too busy cutting and pasting to think about that?
e pirate,
Great wikedpedia “facts”
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 9:34 PM
What, you don’t like wikipedia?
Is that because it’s written by an unknown number of anonymous authors with mystery qualifications?
Sort of like… the Bible?
e-pirate on April 19, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Your argument for evolution has no more merit than the Christian argument for intelligent design. No scientist alive has observed evolution.
You insult an entire religion because you take umbrage at the insults to a man you’ve never met? Taking it a little personal aren’t you?
See, neither side will change the other’s mind because neither can be proven. They both take faith!
kongzilla on April 19, 2008 at 9:44 PM
Another faulty premise about the nature of God. Here’s the truth:
The space issues you have asked about the ark are answered in two parts:
1) Smaller animals than you think (very young, not full-grown)
2) Less animals than you think (read this)
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 9:46 PM
That would be quite difficult, considering it would have to “crawl” up many feet of intestines, not to mention, the common bile duct and the common hepatic duct.
Johan Klaus on April 19, 2008 at 9:47 PM
If I am a soul it is one with all souls. Yours, Mine, Dogs, Cats, Bugs, Trees, Earth, Stars, Universe. I prefer the Gnostic concept (probably borrowed from Eastern Philosophy) that to believe I am unique and separate from all other “souls” or “soul” is the primary stumbling block to Gnosis or The Knowledge or Enlightenment and that the whole point of spiritual study is to come to realization that, as the Buddists phrase it, I am wave on the ocean who suffers in the belief that I am separate and unique from all the other waves. The spiritual journey is to realize that I am wave yes but more importantly I am the Ocean beneath and so one with all other waves and when I crash upon the shore I will flow back to and be one with the Ocean. Me, You, Dogs, Cats, Bugs, Trees, Earth, Stars, Universe. All the same thing. I don’t know if it’s dogmatically “true” don’t care. I like it, makes sense. Brings me some comfort and puts me in my place.
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Just saw the movie. I thought it was excellent.
The relationship between Hitler/Nazism and Darwinism was profound.
Though not related to this movie topic, the relationship between homosexualism in the Nazi ranks and the gay agenda today is concerning to me.
The movie was pretty well attended when we attended.
stenwin77 on April 19, 2008 at 9:49 PM
Yes I can. Kent Hovind was jailed for 10 YEARS unjustly because he was the leading proponent of dissent against the non scientific, official state religion of evolution/secular humanism!
Amazingly they had their buddies, The IRS, go after him illegally.
He had a ministry and refused to sign over his life to the state by filing as 501c3. Even though ministries by law do not have to file as 501c3,most do.
Pushing ministries to file as a 501c3 effectively silences churches from voicing political endorsements!
It’s a way to silence the church.
They put him in prison for 10 YEARS!
He had no prior offenses.
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 9:51 PM
Just thought I’d ask. Why would people pay to see this at the theater? This seems like a rental to me. Is it just to support a conservative producer?
kongzilla on April 19, 2008 at 9:57 PM
This is why you thumpers piss me off! I am not insulting your religion. I am insulting your intelligence. ID is not an Orthodox Precept! It is a CONstruct manufactured by tongue speakers and snake handlers who are disoriented by the lightning fast pace of technological progress and don’t have the intellectual tools with which to deal with their inevitable demise. I every way it is reactionary and a desperate attempt to make a Iron Age Cosmology fit a Space Age World.
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM
I mean that in a good way.
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 9:59 PM
More tin hat stuff.
Scientists have nothing to do with who the IRS punishes for tax fraud.
Churches aren’t allowed to voice political endorsements and retain their tax free status. They can take political stances, but then they have to pay taxes.
e-pirate on April 19, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Ronsfi,
Is the reason why you have such profound spiritual knowledge because you insult God and the things of God all the time?
Do you have your knowledge because of the fact that you are a unrighteous person?
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 10:02 PM
A very respectable post.
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 10:08 PM
I see humility is still not a selected trait among Darwinists.
labrat on April 19, 2008 at 10:09 PM
True I cut and paste. But I unlike you am not inspired by The Great Goshamighty. I depend on people smarter than me. Wiki is not always accurate but I don’t just use that. I prefer links to Universities if I can get them. You don’t bother to read the evidence I provide anyway. At least I provide sources.
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Touche!
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 10:10 PM
You obviously don’t know the author of the Bible.
Here’s a clue:
Do you consider yourself a moral person?
Do you consider yourself a good person?
Maybe Ronsfi does?
What do you think?
Ever told a lie? Maybe a “little white lie”?
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 10:18 PM
What the scientists actually did was to use genetics to determine that everyone in the world inherited genes from a single woman. They proved nothing about the woman herself, of course. Science is not history.
But if the woman had sisters, their children, if any, apparently died out.
And that’s where science hits its limit. Obviously, this would match perfectly with Eve, who is called the mother of all living, and who had no sisters that we know of.
So essentially, science confirms that one woman was the mother of all living, just like the Bible says.
See the discussion of Mitochondrial Eve in Wikipedia
theregoestheneighborhood on April 19, 2008 at 10:18 PM
I have knowledge because I study. I did not become an Atheist because I hate God. I arrived here after much searching. I do find value in “spiritual” ideas from some great thinkers from various religions. I just don’t believe in Gods. Don’t think they are there in some other dimension. The satisfaction you expressed in an earlier comment that one day I will face eternal damnation to me is the sign of a sick soul. I wonder, can you imagine living a life without the fear of Gods? I hope one day you can know that freedom.
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 10:19 PM
What about your sense of morality?
Do you consider yourself to be a good person?
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 10:21 PM
freedom from morality?
So you consider yourself to be a corrupt,evil person then?
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Just got back from seeing the movie.
Very powerful; you all MUST see it.
There’s a CGI simulation of the inner workings of a single cell that is just stunning.
Also, Richard Dawkins admits that things around us do have a signature as though they were designed. He believes it was a higher power as long as he doesn’t have to call it God. The man is in denial. Little ol’ Ben Stein exposes the Grand Master of evolution. There was outright laughter and gasps of amazement in the theater at this moment.
Many evo scientists admit that evolution was the reason they became atheists. There’s no getting around it - the two are inextricably linked.
Another evo scientist interviewed admits that the goal of the evo scientists is to push religion back into the background so that people don’t take it any more seriously than just a bit of fun on the weekend. Very scary agenda.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 10:25 PM
I believe it does both.
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Once again. Noob argument. It’s weak.
Do you think the Greek Pantheon is real? If not how do you account for their highly developed and sophisticated moral code? A good idea is a good idea. Jesus did not invent the wheel or the calculus or teflon or penicillin or table manners. All good ideas just morals. Not all morality is good.
Take the fundamentalist Wahabi morals. Would you think it moral to subject your female family members to that moral code?
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Freedom from fear.
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 10:31 PM
If, as you seem to believe, we are all nothing but collections of molecules with no moral code, then why do you get so incensed at people who believe in God? You nearly froth at the mouth, yet those “believers” are merely collections of molecules doing what comes naturally, just as you do. How dare you begrudge them their part of natural selection?
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 10:33 PM
“They should not be allowed to do so under the mantle of science?” You do an excellent job of proving the point of the movie. No one should control what gets investigated or treated as science.
You may think you’re protecting the integrity of science, but attempts to suppress science you don’t consider sufficiently scientific destroys the integrity of science. The charge made by the movie — and it is a very serious charge — is that very unscientific means have been used to suppress questioning of evolution. If evolution is beyond question, it is no longer science.
In other words, if a scientific theory can’t be questioned, it’s not really science.
Someone will say, “But only a crackpot would question gravity.” First, evolution is nowhere near as established as gravity. Second, even gravity is still under intense investigation, even though the fact of gravity is widely agreed on.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 19, 2008 at 10:34 PM
SaintOlaf, you know that you and I share the same Biblical perspective. I appreciate the stand you take, but with all due respect, please do your best to speak the truth in love. Without love, anything you say is pointless. I’ve tried to tell you this before.
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Someone said here something about God making good kids and bad kids. ‘Taint so. God created the means to procreate. parenting makes kids good or bad.
Woody
woodcdi on April 19, 2008 at 10:40 PM
I think you’re conflicting with the Second Law of Thermodynamics here. Observation of the natural world does not show things spontaneously advancing to more sophisticated and organized states without some intelligence or force behind it. So it would make a lot more sense to assume life started perfectly, and has been going downhill ever since. It would be more plausible to presume that, for example, apes devolved from humans, and reptiles devolved from mammals.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 19, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Thank you for taking the time to read it.
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Do you know what a Straw Man Argument is? It’s where invent a position and attribute it to someone and then tear it down.
Here is your strawman.
If, as you seem to believe, we are all nothing but collections of molecules with no moral code,
never said it don’t believe it.
then why do you get so incensed at people who believe in God?
I love many people that are fervernt believers. I “froth” when they make Outrageous, Unsupported Claims that denigrate great minds and the work of multitudes of fine upstanding and yes, many faithful scientist and researchers. To call them Satanists and imagine conspiracies. Despicalble. The only conspiracy related to Evolution is the one to get Creationism tought in public schools under the guise of the pseudo-scientific Intelligent Design. I find it repulsive. It reflects poorly on the Conservative Movement.
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 10:46 PM
I hate to break this to you, but Richard Dawkins denigrates himself in the movie. Go see for yourself. The movie doesn’t have to make claims when the scientists admit things themselves.
If you make judgments about the movie without seeing it, you have no credibility whatsoever.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 10:50 PM
Red pill if you watch a blind man walking towards a cliff and you,in order to not offend him, do nothing as he walks off the cliff to his death….do you love him?
The answer is no.
If you did stop him and told him “you’re walking off a cliff to your death!”….would that be loving him(even though he persecuted you)?
Yes. In fact that is truly what Jesus meant by speaking the truth in love!
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 10:50 PM
I already said I’m not a Christian. But I don’t see how people believing in intelligent design instead of evolution harms anyone. As I stated earlier your animosity speaks volumes about your intolerance.
How is this any less laughable than Christianity?
kongzilla on April 19, 2008 at 10:53 PM
I agree.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 10:53 PM
I don’t think the key to the scientific method is how it starts, but how it proceeds. If ID leads to a good question that points out a possible problem in the theory of evolution, the proper response is not to dismiss it because of its origin, but to test it scientifically.
Many scientific discoveries start with an observation that is in conflict with current scientific understanding. This leads to a hypothesis that attempts to resolve the conflict. Sometimes that hypothesis involves the current scientific thinking being wrong.
If every question raised by ID is rejected because of its origin, the science of evolution is not going to advance very far.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 19, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Anyone who believes a miracle happened is a certifiable loon?
theregoestheneighborhood on April 19, 2008 at 10:56 PM
I hate to break this to you, but in the movie the evo scientists admit that they would rather believe that life started from aliens seeding the planet rather than even accept the mere possibility of ID. They’ve already walled off one area of possible explanation. That does not serve science - that is the worst precondition possible.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 10:56 PM
I’d like to know where Dawkins got his entropedometer. I sure do want one.
shibumiglass on April 19, 2008 at 10:58 PM
It’s laughable. But I don’t condemn anyone to eternal hellfire or call the minions of Satan if they don’t believe in MY Easter Bunny. It just an idea I like.
And yes I AM INTOLERANT. You tolerate poison. Don’t worry though. I’m sure everyone likes you.
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Haven’t seen the movie. Not discussing the movie. Don’t care what Dawkins says. Eat Poo.
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Poison? Pot calling the refrigerator black.
jgapinoy on April 19, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Even though the truth of ID is suppressed throughout academia & media, there are still more converts from Darwin to ID than the other way around.
jgapinoy on April 19, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Very mature. Exactly what I would expect from a hate-filled evolutionist who has no facts to back up any of his hate-laden ad hominem attacks.
The fact that you don’t care what your own leader says is very revealing. You are emotionally wrapped up in your own denial. It would be amusing if it weren’t so sad. Telling me to eat poo, wow that’s an amazing argument, even your failed evo scientists in the movie had better arguments than you.
By the way, this thread is about the movie. So you’re off topic, and therefore a troll.
Bye, troll!
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Converts is the key word.
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Ronsfi,
What morality is good then, as an evolutionist?
Do people have an inner sense of morality?
Do you know when you do something that is wrong?
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Creationists are stupid. I’m sorry I have to share a political party with them.
triple on April 19, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Better brush the cookie crumbs off your bathrobe and wipe the milk moustache off your upper lip, troll, I think your mommy is coming down the stairs into your basement to see what you’re doing on the inter-web.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 11:11 PM
It’s not a troll, anyone who denies evolution is a retard.
triple on April 19, 2008 at 11:12 PM
i think this is an even bigger issue than just a rejection of ID. it starts much earlier as a rejection of all things conservative. the revision of history, the denigration of traditional American cultural values, the elevation of multiculturalism, etc. all this leads to the end result of academia being populated by close-minded, mutual mental masturbation societies within the ivy covered ivory towers.
short version: it’s bigger than just the rejection of ID.
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Unable to offer any evidence or arguments, yet you make blind, broad-brush assertions.
Troll.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 11:13 PM
OOFF! I’m devastated. Here’s what you do. READ THE THREAD. My evidence is posted. Only dorks use “Ad Hominem” because it’s latin and they it makes them sound smart. Hey!Dorks! That’s Ad Hominem.
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Are drug-resistant diseases intelligent design? How does that happen, hot shot?
triple on April 19, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Go see the movie. I saw it tonight. You’ll enjoy it.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 11:14 PM
I already read the thread. I’ve posted in a good bit of it. You’re an angry, ranting socially inadequate hater, and you’ve failed to convince anybody that you have any credibility. Especially since you are in denial.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Hey how about the baby with two faces or Baby born with brain outside skull? I think I believe in Retarded Design.
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 11:17 PM
You think they are the result of natural selection? Fine, name one and tell me which disease it evolved from.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 11:17 PM
i’m sure i would. might be a while though… my wife and i don’t have a babysitter on speeddial (or any other kind of dial, lol) so we don’t see movies anymore. unless it’s a movie that two boys under the age of 5 would sit through…
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 11:18 PM
How does this prove neoDarwinism? Do you even know the difference between change within species and origin of species?
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 11:18 PM
You’ve cut me to the quick with with your rapier wit!
I’ll burn in hell for eternity. That should cheer you up.
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 11:19 PM
On the contrary, I pity you. You cannot even make a rational argument without calling names or attacking. You run along, now, and go stew in your own boiling juices.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 11:20 PM
LOL! Sweet
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Ronsfi,
What then is good and what is not according to evolutionists?
Is lying ok?
Is stealing ok?
Is murder ok?
Is child rape ok?
What about adultery?
Is child pornography good?
What offends your god?
Is God offended by you using his name in place of sh*& or a some cuss word?
Is cannibalism ok?
What about necrophilia?
Everybody has different morals remember?
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 11:24 PM
He doesn’t want to debate or answer questions. He wants to call names. It’s past his bedtime. You know what happens when kids don’t get their afternoon naps…
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Your guy saintolaf just basically called him a necrophiliac pedophile rapist adulterer, and shit - a liar - why not throw nazi in there too for good measure - but you’re whining about him calling names. Gotcha.
triple on April 19, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Will your ocean god accept you even if you are unholy?
Is your ocean god holy?
Will he allow unholiness into his presence?
Or is he unholy and evil himself?
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 11:29 PM
You again? Still didn’t answer my previous question.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Well I guess if you are reduced to calling me a pedophile and necrophiliac, then you must be all out of arguments. I win. Interesting choice of sins though. Is that what goes on in your head? I, being evil and immoral would never have thought to call such things. New low Congrats.
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 11:30 PM
I believe the sun god Ra created us. There’s no other explanation!
Yes, the christian version will sound just as stupid in 3000 years.
triple on April 19, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Look who’s playing the victim. He was asking you questions about your beliefs, whether or not you considered something ok. Nowhere did he call you a name. The evidence is just a few posts up, despite your attempt to prevaricate.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Comment pages: « 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 … 24 »