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.
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 … 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 … 24 »
Using the doppler effect (or whatever it’s called and how it’s spelled. I used to know a good bit about astronomey but have forgotten most of it.) I think that virtually all astronomers are satisfied that such has already been proven.
Of course I suppose that a God could have been very tricky or something.
MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 2:02 AM
Expelled clip:
Information
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pRtsLv1w1Fw
SaintOlaf on April 20, 2008 at 2:05 AM
MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 2:02 AM
Do you mean by brightness and color?
Johan Klaus on April 20, 2008 at 2:20 AM
Good conversation. I thank God, that I am allowed to thank God for this country and all who have sacrificed for it.
To my Christian friends; it’s the Lord’s Day. Don’t forget to commemorate the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord and creator of all, and “the giver of every good and perfect gift.”
Good night all.
labrat on April 20, 2008 at 2:33 AM
MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 2:02 AM
I think that the only scientifically sound way that distance can be measured is through triangulation, radio signals or laser, considering Doppler’s description of the limits of his Doppler effect.
Johan Klaus on April 20, 2008 at 2:41 AM
labrat on April 20, 2008 at 2:33 AM
Good night.
Johan Klaus on April 20, 2008 at 2:42 AM
I think it has to do with “red shift”.
However -
A team of radio astronomers has used the National Science Foundation’s Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) to make the most accurate measurement ever made of the distance to a faraway galaxy. Their direct measurement calls into question the precision of distance determinations made by other techniques, including those announced last week by a team using the Hubble Space Telescope.
The radio astronomers measured a distance of 23.5 million light-years to a galaxy called NGC 4258 in Ursa Major. “Ours is a direct measurement, using geometry, and is independent of all other methods of determining cosmic distances,” said Jim Herrnstein, of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) in Socorro, NM. The team says their measurement is accurate to within less than a million light-years, or four percent. The galaxy is also known as Messier 106 and is visible with amateur telescopes.
Herrnstein, along with James Moran and Lincoln Greenhill of the Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Phillip Diamond, of the Merlin radio telescope facility at Jodrell Bank and the University of Manchester in England; Makato Inoue and Naomasa Nakai of Japan’s Nobeyama Radio Observatory; Mikato Miyoshi of Japan’s National Astronomical Observatory; Christian Henkel of Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy; and Adam Riess of the University of California at Berkeley, announced their findings at the American Astronomical Society’s meeting in Chicago.
“This is an incredible achievement to measure the distance to another galaxy with this precision,” said Miller Goss, NRAO’s Director of VLA/VLBA Operations. “This is the first time such a great distance has been measured this accurately. It took painstaking work on the part of the observing team, and it took a radio telescope the size of the Earth — the VLBA — to make it possible,” Goss said.
“Astronomers have sought to determine the Hubble Constant, the rate of expansion of the universe, for decades. This will in turn lead to an estimate of the age of the universe. In order to do this, you need an unambiguous, absolute distance to another galaxy. We are pleased that the NSF’s VLBA has for the first time determined such a distance, and thus provided the calibration standard astronomers have always sought in their quest for accurate distances beyond the Milky Way,” said Morris Aizenman, Executive Officer of the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Division of Astronomical Sciences.
“For astronomers, this measurement is the golden meter stick in the glass case,” Aizenman added.
- Dave Finley
MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 3:17 AM
This is not possible because God created vegetation quite a few days before He created insects (bees in particular); if a day was thousands of years long, all vegetation would have died out because there wouldn’t have been any bees to pollinate. Things get pretty messed up when Christians and Jews don’t just believe what God said in the Bible.
My first post in this thread which I have tried to read a good part of but not all, so please forgive me if this has already been mentioned.
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on April 20, 2008 at 3:28 AM
There are trillions — I mean trillions & trillions & trillions– of fossils out there. I know you’ve been asked before, but show us your best transitional fossil. Just one. They must have existed - billions and billions of missing links should be there if the theory is true. Charlie Darwin said, “If my theory be true, (big “if” Charlie) numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed… .” That’s correct Charlie. So ronsfi, give us your best example and end this debate. Thanks.
Wow.
You need to do a little more reading fella. Charles Darwin was a racist. They call his book, The Origin of Species. That’s not correct. Next time someone says that, raise your hand immediately and say, “Excuse me, what is the rest of the title, please? I would like to hear the whole title of the book.” Back in those days, they had long titles on their books. Here is the whole title of the book, “The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection Or The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life.” Favored races? Ok, Charlie… we get the picture. So did Hitler. We could spend all day on that one.
Silence, dead silence, crickets chirping after that comment?! Um, oooookaay. Well, speaking of Galileo Galilei, quite often referred to as the “father of modern astronomy, physics and science”, he said, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” He was a devout Christian who knew there is no conflict between religion and science. He said: “God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word.”
We feel for you….we really do. Try to get a good nights sleep.
apacalyps on April 20, 2008 at 3:35 AM
I would also like to thank fossten, and all the other creationists here for your posts, really enjoyed reading them, and I’m not even finished yet!
fossten, your post on April 18, 2008 at 3:38 PM was really “awesome”, thanks!
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on April 20, 2008 at 3:38 AM
Do you really believe this, or are you just a liar? Cuz, man, that is just ridiculous.
You’re really telling everybody here a little tiny Chihuahua, that lil’ dog hand fed Purina Dog Chow from a puppy, that little thing, you’re ACTually telling us if that dog were let loose in the wilderness, it would join a pack of hungry wild dogs (ie, wolves & coyotes, which in North America, just so happen to eat Chihuahua for lunch) you’re telling us the Chihuahua would survive?! This is classic. LOL. Are you always this stupid or are you making a special effort today?
apacalyps on April 20, 2008 at 3:56 AM
So was Abraham Lincoln.
No domesticated dogs could survive in the wild. They can however, live feral alongside humans. As a member of feral pack I’m sure a small dog would be able to scrounge enough to survive.
Perhaps I was might harsh in my comment. I was addressing a specific individual. I am aware that most people are trying to do good and live an honorable life. My Mother takes great solace in the knowledge that the hereafter awaits. I would never want to take that away from her. Many scientists are believers. Great. I however am not. I don’t like being referred to as a Minion Of Satan and told that I will burn in hell. it’s an awful thing to say to somebody. I also think ID is a ruse to introduce Christian creationism into public schools. I present my case and provide supporting evidence. None of the commenters who engaged in flame warfare provided the same. In the end they assumed the standard fall back position, common to believers, that I am just a bad person. That’s the difference between us. I think you are wrong but fundamentally decent but you think I am evil. Makes dialog a bit sticky.
ronsfi on April 20, 2008 at 4:52 AM
Of course, but you don’t understand the significance of this or you ignore it. They find the bodies of some Arctic explorers in the Canadian Arctic in 1845, and their bodies contained bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Interesting. But, um, the first antibiotics were developed in the early 1940s. Think about that for a minute. These resistant bacteria could not have evolved in response to antibiotics. Again, the resistance was already there, the bacteria already had the genes for resistance to the antibiotics. No new information is added. In fact, even though they are all resistant, this is a loss of information — this mutation has destroyed information..
Alright. We got that.
I just covered that, but I wanna point out that this is the old “bait and switch” trick. These evilutionists define small changes within a basic kind as “evolution”, they try to point out that small changes, like antibiotic resistance, occur.. then they claim that they have demonstrated the evolution of molecules - to - man. It never fails. lol… They always point to ABX resistance as proof for evolution… lol… It’s all they’ve got… sheesh, look man, when bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, this is not evidence for evolution. This is only a shuffling of genetic information already present. That’s it. I already explained that in my previous post. It doesn’t add something new. It takes information already there and scrambles it up. Evolution requirs a gain of genetic complexity for bacteria to evolve into man. Rearranging the known info in the bacteria is not going to produce anything new … Man, you got taken by this one.
And besides the evolutionist… at least the atheistic evolutionist… must believe, they must believe that everything started off from a rock and the rock came from nothing. Dude. That’s where you’re bacteria came from according to evolution theory. A rock. And I said, like I said, I don’t care if somebody wants to believe that, but it’s not right for parents to have to pay for these lies to be taught to their children in school. That’s not right at all.
apacalyps on April 20, 2008 at 4:59 AM
No.
No.
Assuming that you aren’t using a definition of murder that includes killing in self-defense, then no.
No.
Well, no… but what’s the situation? Is this a marriage that is already clearly headed towards divorce and reached the point of legal separation or even restraining orders?
No… and ewwww.
I don’t know that I have a god, but if one does exist I somehow doubt that he would be as pleased with you as you are with yourself.
I sure as hell hope not, I do it all the goddamned time.
Well, that depends… are we talking about a plane crash in the Andes, or something along the lines of Jeffrey Dahmer?
Not without obtaining permission in writing ahead of time from the decedent.
If you say so.
Watcher on April 20, 2008 at 5:00 AM
The problem is even if you could refute evolution, which you haven’t, it still doesn’t prove your creation myth is true. You can never prove that. Unless you can produce God.
ronsfi on April 20, 2008 at 5:11 AM
You know it brother from a different mother.
SpReAd tHe TrUtH.
Copyright © 2008 Anti-Hellbound-Task-Force
apacalyps on April 20, 2008 at 5:13 AM
What evidence do you have that the Universe was willed into existence by an extra-dimensional super being?
ronsfi on April 20, 2008 at 5:18 AM
Based on this comment, I am confident there is still hope for you ronsfi. There is hope. I gotta go now, but I’ll try to reply to another of your comments later — if I can. In the meantime, I wanna leave you with this thought. Either the universe was designed, or it came about by random chance. These are the only options. And the view you adopt as your philosophy of life will have a profound effect on many decisions you make and your eternal destiny when this life is over. So you better be right ronsfi. You better be right man. Think about who’s ideas your defending here dude. Cuz, believe me, he ain’t gonna save you when it’s all said and done. He’s got nothin’ for you but sorrow. Ciao.
apacalyps on April 20, 2008 at 5:33 AM
There you go. De dibbils got me! You forget. No God. No Satan. What a strange concept. How condescending. Right or wrong. Makes no difference. When you die. You are dead. The Universe is what it is. You can believe what you wish. I would recommend studying the history of religion so you may see how the myths are appropriated, passed on and molded from culture to culture. Really it’s fascinating.
ronsfi on April 20, 2008 at 5:47 AM
Amen.
In honor of our fallen veterans:
In honor of our LORD:
Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 6:20 AM
I’m still working my way through all of the comments, so forgive me if this has been raised earlier…
Captain Ed, the next time John McCain does a blogger conference call, please ask him if he is for or against public education having open dialog and debate regarding Intelligent Design.
Let’s see whether or not he is an “Agent of Intolerance”.
Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 6:25 AM
Now over 1500
:-)
Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 6:33 AM
The Marxists appear to be in control of many things including, but not limited to:
Nick
Disney
Public Education
National Science Foundation
The Democrat Party
Some members of the Republican Party (including, in my opinion, John McCain)
Many other Government organizations
Even some liberal churches (like the one Captain Ed revealed even took Jesus Christ out of Easter/Resurrection Sunday! … remember “Glorious Hope” is risen today?)
Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 6:42 AM
The Theory of Evolution is not “true science” because it doesn’t meet the standards you yourself admit are required to be met for “true science”:
Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 6:57 AM
One other thing I’m not sure has been posted: I’m a creationist who believes that the “day” mentioned in Genesis is 24 hours, but that the Earth could easily be older than 6-7,000 years. In Genesis 1:1, Earth *already* exists and was “null and void”, and *then* God started creating life on it. Who knows how long Earth was in space null and void before God created life on it? I believe that human civilization began 6-7,000 years ago, but Earth could be much older. FWIW.
Aslans Girl on April 20, 2008 at 7:17 AM
And 1,450 of them are yours. :-)
Rod on April 20, 2008 at 7:18 AM
ROTFL. I love HotAir.
Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 7:59 AM
Really, the point of the movie isn’t the whole evolution v. Intelligent Design. It is the banning and PERSECUTION of those who want a debate of the issues in science.
The most advanced society that carried Darwinism to its ultimate extent was Hitler in Germany. It was NOT a pretty picture. While Christianity has/had its dark times in history, it also has been an agent for freedom and value of life.
I believe the uniqueness of America is the tolerance of all (well, most) religions. We work shoulder to shoulder with people who do not believe the same as we individually do. The scientific world is not so tolerant.
stenwin77 on April 20, 2008 at 8:14 AM
Exactly. And too many conservatives have not paid attention to how McCain stole the “presumptive” Republican nomination. What exactly happened in Washington state? What exactly happened in Florida? Why was McCain a no-show at the Feb 5th debate, and why did he cancel the Feb 28th debate? Something sinister is afoot.
But most of you know that I have been told by the highest of authorities that the next President will not be McCain, Clinton, or Obama. I won’t mention the name of the next POTUS here, because I’m truly not trying to turn the conversation that way, just merely responding to (and agreeing with) fossten’s post.
Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 8:17 AM
Anyone else here died and and been sent back?
It’s happened to me twice.
Beto Ochoa on April 20, 2008 at 8:35 AM
I have been a scientist for over 40 years and scientists routinely teach untestable theories in the classroom. For example, string theory is untestable, but it is routinely discussed in scientific circles and in the classroom. The only difference between string theory and intelligent design is that it doesn’t involve the possible existence of a creator (i.e., God). Most scientists are happy to teach/discuss fringe, untestable theories as long as God is removed from the equation. As a believer in God, I am not opposed to teaching evolution as long as an honest debate of its many weaknesses and untestable aspects is allowed. The truth is, scientists who question the validity of macro-evolution do so at their own peril, because the scientific community is so close-minded. Expelled simply exposes this fact in a humorous way. In my opinion, there is a desperate need for exposing modern scientific education for what it really is: indoctrination and brain-washing of people to disbelieve in the existence God. Three cheers for Ben Stein and his new movie.
By the way, for you hardcore evolutionists, questioning the validity of macro-evolutionary theory does not invalidate or jeopardize the medical advances being achieved by using the finer aspects of evolutionary theory to better understand living things. Hence, there is absolutely nothing inherently sinister or wrong about questioning the more questionable aspects of evolutionary theory. Such a debate is needed and would be healthy for the scientific community.
NuclearPhysicist on April 20, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Nuclear, you actually referred to the article that started this whole mess?
you’re thinking outside the box.
RMC1618 on April 20, 2008 at 8:46 AM
Interesting, I just read an anecdotal account of a theater clerk stamping someone’s ticket for a different movie when Expelled was requested. Also, over at the Infidels blog, they openly brag about buying tix for a different movie, then seeing Expelled in Cineplexes. Ooh, how subversive. They’re winning Ben Stein’s Money !!11!1
I do think that the clerk should be investigated and “expelled” if that is found to be intentional behavior.
rhodeymark on April 20, 2008 at 8:55 AM
stenwin77 on April 20, 2008 at 8:14 AM
Seeing what is currently happening to the FLDS families in Texas makes me wonder about how far we have come in our religious tolerance. Because this sect believes and teaches that women should be allowed to marry once they reach puberty and that men should marry more than one woman, they are being judged to be child abusers and having their children taken away.
Not so long ago in this country, it was common for young women who achieved puberty and who desired to start a family (teens younger than eighteen) to wed older men. This was considered natural and quite acceptable. What has changed since then? Were many of our great-great-grandfathers pedophiles worthy of incarceration? Society has changed its laws but not the essential realities of being human. In this country alone, over 400,000 unwed underage teenagers become single mothers each year. Is society better off for prohibiting such women from marrying a man of their choosing (old or young) and beginning a family? Shouldn’t the larger issues of personal choice and parental consent be the overriding considerations for such matters?
The raid on the FLDS compound clearly raises constitutional issues concerning the freedom of personal religious worship for U.S. citizens. It should also give us pause to question how we have changed the laws in modern times concerning the age of consent for marriage. I’m all for stopping individuals from abusing the rights of others by forcing them into unwanted marriages. But, I don’t see the harm in allowing underage teens who have reached puberty to marry a responsible older person with the consent of their parents. Modern Federal and State laws have become far too intrusive on freedoms that should otherwise be allowed under the U.S. Constitution. Rather than persecute a religious sect that disagrees with the modern norms of American society, perhaps it is time to rethink the rationale for the unnecessarily restrictive laws that we have enacted and to return to an era of greater freedom.
We need honest answers to many difficult questions like: What is so inherently evil about an older man marrying a young teenage woman who has reached child-bearing age and who wishes to be married to him? Most parents would not consent to such unions unless the man, no matter what age he is, has the means to support their daughter. For that matter, what is so inherently evil about plural marriage? It was practiced with the blessing of God in Biblical history. As long as a man properly supports his multiple wives and the women involved do not object, why should society prohibit these unions? How does allowing such unions damage society? Unless we can demonstrate an over-riding societal risk in allowing certain practices, I fail to see why society should have the right to prohibit them just because the majority of Americans do not agree with them.
The persecution of the FLDS sect in Texas is yet another example of how our society has become extremely close-minded with respect to its acceptance of differing views.
NuclearPhysicist on April 20, 2008 at 8:56 AM
Sorry I missed yesterday’s alleged debate. Where to begin? How about with an easy one:
Atoms are not made up mostly of air. The space between the constituent parts of atoms is made up of vacuum (i.e., nothing at all). Air is made up of molecules (mostly N2 and O2) which in turn are made up of atoms (mostly N and O). “Pieces” of air are thus larger than the atoms themselves. Further, by definition, there is no air in a vacuum. Or maybe you think that particle physics, like biology, geology, and astronomy, is a satanist hoax.
hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Unreal. Actually, that whole post is really disturbing. *shakes head*
JetBoy on April 20, 2008 at 9:12 AM
The variants on the Big Bang theory do not attempt to explain the beginning. They merely assert that the universe looks exactly as it would have had the universe “exploded” outward from a singularity. Using our existing knowledge and the evidence present all around us, the history of the universe can be traced back to a point in time that, if the Big Bang theories are correct, would stand roughly 10^-42 seconds after said Big Bang. Backwards beyond that point, our non-unified force theories break down. Even if we could figure out how to unify the electro-weak force with the strong force, we wouldn’t get to t=0; we’d just get asymptotally closer.
We can’t prove that the Big Bang happened, but we can prove that it sure looks like it did. We can’t prove that God did not create the universe, but we can prove that if he did, he sure made it look as though he didn’t.
hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Force-fed? The force-feeders must have missed you, then. Perhaps they weren’t forceful enough.
hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 9:19 AM
The laws of thermodynamics, like all other laws of nature, only exist within the universe. The Big Bang, if it did take place, took place outside of the universe, because there was no universe before the Big Bang. All the laws of physics crystallized only afterward.
An alternative, and possibly parallel, explanation, is that, since the whole universe exploded outward in opposite directions at roughly equal density, and in equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, that on net the whole universe sums to zero, and the second law of thermodynamics will indeed hold when everything, at the end of time, collapses on itself in a Big Crunch.
hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 9:24 AM
They can’t argue against the fossil record, so they argue against the dating system. After all, radioactive decay is just another Lie perpetrated by the satanists in college physics departments and force-fed to us by the
Jewsliberals in the media. The evolutionist conspiracy runs so deep as to afflict every branch of science, remember? Marie Curie was a hell-bound devil worshipper.hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 9:29 AM
This is laugh-out-loud funny. Everything in evolution starts with: “Assume a one-celled organism.” Evolution CANNOT explain how the big bang happened or how life started, but evolutionary scientists will entertain some rather crazy ideas.
When confronted with questions about how the one-celled organism obtained life, evo scientists are stumped. When pressed for an answer, they say they will not accept that God did it, but they will accept that it was “…somehow on the backs of crystals” or “aliens did it.”
They admit this IN THE MOVIE.
Again, for emphasis: “No God, but perhaps aliens!”
Very scientific.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Just because many of the things we now know about the world vaguely resemble vague quotes from the Bible doesn’t prove anything more than that many of the events in history vaguely resemble vague quotes from Nostradamus or the Oracle at Delphi.
In logic, this is called “Confirmation Bias,” or the “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy,” after the amateur gunslinger who shoots the side of the barn first, and paints his targets around the bullet-holes after the fact.
Who knows, St. Olaf? If you post enough, you might accidentally get something right, too!
hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 9:37 AM
JetBoy on April 20, 2008 at 9:12 AM
Allowing such marriages is does not equate to legalizing child molestation, unless you believe that many of our great-great-grandfathers were child molesters. Rather than closing your mind and shaking your head, perhaps you need to start thinking out-of-the-box. If my 14 year old daughter decided to have sex, get pregnant, and keep her baby, no Child Protective Services personnel would show up and take her baby away unless she was abusing the child. In Texas, 14 year old FLDS women who decided to have sex, get pregnant, and keep their babies are having them taken away because the state doesn’t like that their religion condones this practice. The state acknowledges that the children have been loved and properly cared for but they still find cause to take the children away. If you don’t find this disturbing, then you are truly close-minded.
NuclearPhysicist on April 20, 2008 at 9:44 AM
There is no corpus of atheistic beliefs; rather, atheists are distinguished by only one singular lack-of-belief. Atheists can have other, positive beliefs, ranging from Objectivism to Marxism to Buddhism to Paganism to Scientology, and these beliefs, like Marxism and Buddhism, may even qualify as religions, but none of this makes atheism itself a religion. Atheism is specifically a lack of belief in any god or God, and the individual atheist is free to choose where to go from there.
(Also, by way of further evidence against your thesis that atheism is a relgion, please note that Objectivism and Marxism are about as diametrically opposed as Satanism and Calvinism, and that it is exceedingly stupid to say that both Objectivists and Marxists are members of the same religion.)
hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 9:45 AM
You really need to see the movie.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 9:48 AM
If both sides of the argument were merely advancing their opinions, then it would be merely propaganda to send a Creationist to a scientific website. However, one of the sides to this debate is arguing from actual empirical evidence synthesized into cogent and logical theories, and the other is not.
To refer a Troofer to the Popular Mechanics website that debunks the 9/11 conspiracy theories is not to disseminate propaganda; rather, it is to inform. There is a valid set of facts and theories with regard to 9/11, and Troofers are on the wrong side of it.
What possible value would there be to anyone in directing them to a website that takes no position between science and anti-science, that remains neutral between inference from observation and inference from myth?
hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 9:59 AM
I thought someone of your theological bent would have heard of such institutions as Liberty University, Bob Jones University, and Patrick Henry University. Surely these fine institutions fit within the category of “colleges in the U.S.”
hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 10:02 AM
It’s not faith; it’s statistical inference. If you know, or accept for the sake of argument, the frequency with which a 30ft monster could be expected to be under your bed, and you take repeated samples, finding him absent each time, you can calculate (well, maybe you can’t, but I can) the statistical likelihood that your assumptions with regard to his existence are true. If you repeat the test over and over ad nauseam and he still doesn’t show up, then you’re getting pretty danged close to 0% likelihood, my friend.
And even if you consider the above to be an act of faith, you must still admit it is faith of a very different kind than that exhibited by a person who looks under the bed, sees no monster, and nonetheless has faith that the monster absolutely does exist, and spends the rest of his life acting in accordance with such a belief even though such actions impose great inconveniences upon himself.
hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Henry Morris argued in his book The Genesis Flood that the sequential ordering of fossils in geologic strata could be due to the ordering of how fast animals could run uphill as they tried to escape the deluge.
Seriously.
HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 10:11 AM
This is the best demonstration I have read of why ID/Creationism is not science. The bottom line - creationism is ultimately driven by fear of the god of damnation. And you can’t peer review that.
HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Punctuated Equilibrium explained
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 10:19 AM
But just because people aren’t listening to the things you’re speaking doesn’t mean that you’re speaking the truth. Perhaps they’re not listening because they think your voice is annoying. Perhaps you’re interrupting another, more interesting conversation. Or perhaps they’re scared away by the reflection glinting off of your tinfoil hat.
hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Just as incredible as evolutionists and their “sliding strata” theory.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Dude, I realize you’re not on this page, but you’ve been answered several times already. You really need to see the movie, because you don’t know what you’re talking about. These people have ADMITTED to firing professors because of their beliefs.
Can you get on the same page?
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 10:21 AM
I think that evolution should be taught in the political science departments of our universities. Its ability to morph and waffle are rivaled only by modern politicians. /sarc
NuclearPhysicist on April 20, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Actally, quite a few of them (and most of the important ones) were Deists, which is the closest thing you can get to atheism while still believing in a God. The operative theory behind Deism (read Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason for more detail on this) is that God created the universe, then stepped out the back door and has never been seen or heard from since.
Deists held that the way man can learn what God intended for him to know is by using science and reason to study the world around them. It was through this process that they arrived at all the ideas rooted in Natural Law that are enshrined in the Constitution. If one removes the concept of God from the logical sequence, the conclusions remain unchanged.
Also, please do bear in mind that Europe was run by Christianity for centuries, but rather than producing anything even remotely resembling America, it simply created a hell on earth. The Inquisition was the principles of Christianity applied to government; America is the product of the principles of the Enlightenment.
hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 10:29 AM
And yet if a great number of people claim to have seen that “monster” with their own eyes, something unprecendented and amazing, “and spends the rest of his life acting in accordance with such a belief even though such actions impose great inconveniences upon himself,” it’s not reasonable to even listen to what that person has to say without dismissing it as “lunacy” as someone up the thread put it?
I’m referring of course to those Jews in antiquity, in addition to the ones who claimed to see the Red Sea parted with their own eyes and passed this information down to their children and grandchildren etc, as well as those Jews later who knew that a Jew called Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, died and was buried (Jews and Romans have separate records of this fact regarding a real historical figure), and yet many, many of those Jews claim to have seen him after his death, walking around, claiming he had risen from the dead and doing and saying amazing things (we call them miracles).
And it was more than “great inconvenience” in fact. Many of these people were killed for their beliefs after passing them on to others (and others are still being killed for them even today, I might add).
Your phrasing made me think of that. That’s all.
inviolet on April 20, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Fossten, tu quoque much? Furthermore, one of these “theories” requires absolute suspension of disbelief and represents a postulate with no predictive value, whereas the other requires only rudimentary understanding of a few testable, repeatable scientific principles and the logical capacity to validly extrapolate from them and produces a theoretical framework capable of describing and elucidating a huge number of other processes.
Sure, it might seem like black magic to you, but so again would my laptop computer seem to a backwards primitive.
hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Shiver me timbers, LOOK at this thread!
Capitana on April 20, 2008 at 10:41 AM
From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html:
Peer review’s a bitch, ain’t it? Especially when your peers aren’t peers at all, but your scientific and intellectual superiors.
hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Stirring. Perhaps you may not be aware, as this information is not found in the Bible, but when evolution was first postulated as a theory, there was debate before it moved from being just another theory in another book by another biologist to the standard model for explaining the origin of species. During this debate, evolution trounced all comers and dethroned Young Earth Creationism for the title of top theory.
If you want to replace evolution now with a new theory, it is your job to prove that your theory is better; it is not the job of mainstream scientists to rebut every half-baked “idea” that comes along, especially when they’ve already rebutted it before.
hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Oh no! Not people insulting an entire religion! Why don’t you set some cars on fire or murder a cartoonist until you get the rage out of your system and can force an apology out of the infidel who offended your sensibilities so?
hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Beto Ochoa and I saw the movie yesterday and HIGHLY recommend it for all of the world. As soon as it is available to purchase, get a copy for your library. Ben Stein has provided an entire course work of readings to study and promote, as free intelligent thought is at stake, particularly in the USA.
One favorite spot featured Darwinian evolution as a metaphysical argument that can only be defended upon metaphysical grounds. Yet Darwinists denounce metaphysics. Metaphysics, free thought that includes what one can imagine or understand before proof positive is in hand, have been Verboten since the late 19th Century via positivism and empiricism that simultaneously deny whatever is not yet known, all the while denouncing absolutes that do/don’t exist. For Darwinian evolution, itself a metaphysical argument, to be studied rather than ABSOLUTELY ACCEPTED ON TRUST OF UNPROVEN THEORY AS FACT requires the very free thought process that its priests “ACADEMIA Science Establishment” (government) deny mere mortals (all others, all scientists).
Ben Stein is GREAT. Viva la Expelled IDEA: Intelligence!
maverick muse on April 20, 2008 at 11:00 AM
To paraphrase a recent episode of South Park, Richard Dawkins is not the emperor of atheists.
hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 11:06 AM
I hope I don’t insult anyone’s religion when I say this, but I don’t have enough faith to believe:
–That lightning hit a mud puddle & peptites, polypeptites, & amino acids were formed, & they joined together to make a “simple” cell, which is more complex than more complex than an automobile.
–That eyesight, which requires rods, cones, pupils, retinas, & a dozen other parts, evolved.
–That birds just happened to grow wings & light-weight bones & teach themselves how to fly.
jgapinoy on April 20, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Nobody ever claimed that it did (aside from creationists setting up a straw man to argue against). Evolution is not itself is not repeatable—neither is any other theory as to why and how the world came about as it did. However, evolution is the logical synthesis of myriad other experiments and observations, and it is the scientific theory that best explains the most observations. Other scientific theories as to the origin of life don’t explain as much, and creationism, although it explains as much and more, cannot by any stretch even pretend to be a scientific theory.
I know most of you on this website think that science is all one big monolithic satanic lie created by a cabal of
Jewsscientists and intellectuals who are intent on hiding the truth from the rest of us, but this tinfoil conspiracy of yours doesn’t explain why, in the face of new evidence, the world of astrophysics was so quick to switch from a steady-state to a “big bang” model of the origin of the universe in the ’50s and ’60s. Given new data and better models, scientists do draw new conclusions, and the only reason that ID or YEC aren’t in public school biology textbooks is because ID and YEC explain nothing.hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 11:21 AM
BTW, IMHO, the issue of intelligent design eminates from intelligent matter; that all matter on earth functions proves its own innate intelligence so far as I am concerned.
Science, via experimental knowledge, proves my humble thought’s truth, that matter/substance “knows” itself what it is, and how it reponds to stimuli. Ex: The Cell. That we humans want to know it all is fine, but to assume that we already know it all is folly. For one perception (Darwin’s had/has his/its own limitations) to be the only reality is folly as well for the saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The “origin of life” remains an enigma.
That Darwinism drove Eugenicists into Fascists and Nazis is material “absolute” evidence that parallels the fascistic social degeneration of our “modern” realm of Science!
BTW,
Those studying the implications of intelligent design were not promoting the MSM popularly denounced “Creationism” of fundamentalist Bible thumpers. That scientists can experience God within their studies is no sin, and rather it could well be felt as a blessing in their work. THAT is all beside the point, however, that intelligence can be recognized as what makes things work.
maverick muse on April 20, 2008 at 11:22 AM
the numbers show that Michael Moore can open a movie better than Ben Stein. Or maybe its just not as “hot button” an issue as the MSM would have us believe.
beefytee on April 20, 2008 at 11:23 AM
All of you die hard evolutionists, this is the dogma that you follow, or that will lead you. In analysis, you believe in evolution of man, therefore some men or more evolved than others…tell me, which race is “more evolved” than the others, maybe your prophet Darwin has the answer…
And in summary this little quote:
I would rather be wrong on the debate of evolution and ID, then to prescribe to the belief that one race is more evolved than another…I kind of like what some crazy zealotes a couple of hundred years ago said…
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Well gee, that is an interesting highly intelligent response…I guess if we believe the possibility of ID we think of others as being satanic, Jews, and reject all science..
You were never chosen for the debate team were you…
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 11:52 AM
To quote myself:
Furthermore, evolution is a fact, on a par with the observable fact that the Earth is round and not flat. The fossil record reveals the evolution of organisms from simple to complex in great detail, and those who would deny that record are on a par with those who would argue that the Earth is indeed flat.
The theory that natural selection drives evolution was first proposed by Darwin and Wallace, as the best way to explain the fossil record and the variety of life that has emerged. This was before the discovery of genes and mutations, and long before the discovery of DNA, both discoveries which have only served to enriched the basic theory of how natural selection works.
It is too bad that for 150 years or so religious people have thought that the theory of natural selection and the fact of evolution contradicted or invalidated their traditional beliefs, but there is no gainsaying the facts: the Earth is spherical, it revolves about a minor sun in a spiral galaxy, one of billins of such galaxies in an immense universe that is currently beyond our understanding. Life on Earth began as a result of unknown processes, and evolved to its current state by processes we know better and better as time goes on. One day we will discover how life got its start, perhaps by seeing it happen on other planets (one of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn?).
What science is about is increasing the sum of human knowledge. Creationism or ‘Intelligent Design’ is about stopping that increase in its tracks. That’s why it doesn’t belong in a science curriculum: because it isn’t science, and is antithetical to the scientific method and enterprise.
MrLynn on April 20, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Don’t you guys ever get tired of using the same tired argument?
Let’s apply modern Christianity…
What atheist hospital do you go to?
What atheist university will you send your kids to?
What atheists hunger relief organizations are there?
At night the thousands of homeless are fed by whom? (hint, not atheists).
You live and flourish in a country built on faith, by faith in a God, and primarily the Christian’s (not to undermine the incredible contributions of Jews). That century old argument is tossed out, by the incredible contributions of the faithful…and you get to live and partake in what the faithful has built for you and your family. Problems in churchs? Absolutely, but they still produce incredible positive results, obviously more than you imagine or would ever consider.
Where do abused women go? To the atheist center, I think not…often the first on the scene in disasters? Government, I think not, more often Church’s and the faithful…the atheists, and agnostics, sit on the sidelines until there is balance (created by the faithful), and then whine about people of faith…or say, yeah but they were mean 6oo years ago…
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Corrigenda:
‘to enriched’ should be ‘to enrich’
‘billins’ should be ‘billions’
MrLynn on April 20, 2008 at 12:11 PM
So now you get to answer the question…if you believe in evolution, then you have to believe different species evolve at different rates…in fact different “races” withing those species evolve at a different rate. Some dogs, like sheep dogs, or Jack Russells are more intelligent then others…so what human races are more evolved then the others, we can’t all “evolve” at the same rate. That is the basis of Darwin’s evolution, and evolution itself, we are in constant evolution…and certain “races” evolve at different rates.
Darwin writes:
I will enjoy your dance…
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 12:19 PM
I’m only here for a minute, but wanted to share this…
Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 12:19 PM
I’ve see liberals with less venom debate an issue.
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Yes…
So ronsfi considers this racist a great man, well well…what can we say.
I hope other evolutionists take umbrage at this rant…a outright racist being held up as
But I have heard nothing…
Question: Did evolution create racism, or did racism create evolution…or are they brothers?
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 12:31 PM
i.e.
A wizard did it..
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Since an episode of South Park is your best authority on the matter, I believe I win this one.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 12:38 PM
In case you haven’t noticed, this movie is about the attempts of scientists to do just that, but they have been and are being squashed and silenced by the so-called mainstream scientists.
You might want to get your knowledge in line with current events.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Sorry, wrong answer. NeoDarwinian evolution has not been, nor can be, tested or observed. It’s simply guesswork, based COMPLETELY on the premise: Assume a living cell. There is no credible evolutionary explanation for the origin of life. Scientists will accept aliens, but not God.
Even then there is ZERO evidence that one species became another.
See this youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hELnhw72CI&NR=1
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 12:43 PM
So we have moved from Big Bang, to Big Crunch…kind of like Global Warming, to Global Change.
I prefer the Big Squeeze theory…Where an overweight Goddess, caught the universe between her thighs, and the rest is history.
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Good points. What some here posit cannot explain man’s understanding of God and motivations based on that understanding to do good. The divine in man, the recognition of the soul, cannot be explained by deconstructing man to the elemental level. What’s man’s motivation to do good if he’s bound for worm food? In the 1500+ posts, has there been an adequate response? Why does man consistently look for the divine throughout the ages? What is the evolved chemical in a man’s brain that leads him to yearn for God? What’s the chemical process that led to this from the primordial soup? Show your math people…. don’t just theorize and postulate.
Cold Steel on April 20, 2008 at 12:57 PM
the only atheist medical center i can think of is ‘Planned Parenthood’..
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 12:58 PM
From guessing about the past…to predicting the future. When will their arrogance end? ROFL at his scientific method!
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark…
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Atheism is a religion the same way every independent bible church is lumped under ‘Protestant church’
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 1:03 PM
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 1:03 PM
They have high priests, heretics, prophets, scripture, and eternal punishments just like every other religion.
Cold Steel on April 20, 2008 at 1:04 PM
the little church on the corner.. that does NOT have a head organization.. the tithe you give is goes right back to the community and is part of the pastor’s wage.. that kind of church
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 1:07 PM
missread that, Cold Steel.. :) sorry
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Yes he was a great man and a racist. Like some others such as our founding fathers.
To answer your question. Christians were practicing racism very well on their own long before Darwin. But if you can’t refute the message. Attack the messenger. Well done.
“Eleven o’clock on Sunday morning . . . is the most segregated hour in Christian America.”—Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
ronsfi on April 20, 2008 at 1:14 PM
I noticed when the statement of Darwin being a racist, and that evolution is related to racism…the evolutionists have left the scene.
I hope they have thought long and hard about the effects of evolution, and the way it has and will be used to discern between races of people…
Please, evolutionists, answer my question…which race has evolved further than the others? They can’t be on the same plane, mathematically impossible, and evolution, by definition, demands differences.
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Now answer my question…races can’t have evolved equally, which one do you thing is more evolved?
And I am glad that you hang your argument on one quote by one man (and re-quoted by Obama just recently to justify his relationship with a bigot and racist)…if I give you two counter quotes will you say I win???
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 1:21 PM
BS..
only if you consider the KKK in the christian church..
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Of course… we see another common misconception expresed here — this notion that ID & Creation are the same thing. When Creation says that “God created the world in 6 days, roughly six thousand years ago”, and Intelligent Design that “Somebody, or something, was involved with in the process, at some point — or points — in the past (ie, it could be Jehovah, Allah, or Nilly, from the planet silly), that is not the same thing. ID & Creationism are two very different things. The Bible says God made the world about 6,000 years ago; 4,400 years ago there was a Flood that destroyed the world; 2,000 years ago Jesus came, died on the cross, and here we are today. Here we are today, waiting for the Lord to come back in about 10 minutes.
NOTE: This theory not only explains how the dinosaurs died, but how so many fossils were preserved (A gigantic flood with tons of dirt and water covering you instantly would result in a fossil).
Sorry, but I think you’re being a little sophomoric. This might be hard to understand. But, since the world is here, there are only two choices. Somebody made it, or it made itself. I’d also like to know what does science have