Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill  

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 … 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 »

Uh…you’re the one who made the comparison between the space shuttle and the cell, not him. FAIL.

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 7:32 PM

No I didn’t. You may need to go back a page. I’m the one who said “only a dumbass could compare cells to a space shuttle.”

Stop counting space shuttle tiles. Yeah, each one is different and has it’s own number in the database, but they are all made out the same material. As a seven year veteran of NASA, I strongly suspect that you are mistaken. The shuttle only recently got it’s CPUs upgraded to 1990′ Intel chip technology. From the stuff that I’ve read, the biology of a cell is vastly more complex. The DNA strand alone, if straightened out, would stretch from the earth to the moon and back several times.

If you don’t think there are thousands of different part numbers in any space shuttle, I think you outed yourself as the janitor down in Houston, not an engineer.

A DNA strand is like 10 feet long, it would not make it very far to the moon. Maybe you ought to read more biology.

e-pirate on April 20, 2008 at 7:39 PM

You really haven’t seen the movie yet, have you?

Kind of hard to “work harder” when all of them are fired and blackballed, unable to find work.

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM

Yeah, it’s kind of hard to find work as a science teacher if you’re unwilling to teach or do science.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 7:39 PM

A disturbing contradiction indeed. Davies had to admit that Darwinism has yet to provide any process or mechanism that can account for the “information” (as Davies put it) or the intelligent direction required to put those building blocks of life together in the first place.

labrat on April 19, 2008 at 6:36 PM

Sooner or later, they will have to admit that there are three levels of existence in the universe, viz. matter, energy, and information.

I laugh at them when they deny it — because I then point out to them that Mensa’s intelligence tests are ALL based on one thing, viz. pattern recognition. They can’t even measure intelligence without it. Information is the key to destroying their arguments.

CyberCipher on April 19, 2008 at 6:51 PM

CyberCipher, my hat is off to you. I can’t tell you how many times you and your Collie have made me laugh heartily. But the post above may be one of your most poignant and powerful. You are right on the money that Mensa’s intelligence tests are ALL based on pattern recognition. If recognizing those patterns is a measure of your intelligence (the less patterns you recognize, the less intelligent Mensa deems you to be), what does that say about the one who created the patterns? That’s the most intelligent one, right? And everyone knows that said Mensa test was “created” and didn’t “evolve”. The level of complexity of patterns in the observed world around us screams of a supremely intelligent Creator, for anyone with ears to hear and eyes to see.

Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 7:39 PM

CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 7:18 PM,

Since you brought up math, as a former math teacher I wanted to throw some fascinating quotes into the mix from a book of mine, Mathematics: Is God Silent? by James Nickel. [my bold]

First from Morris Kline in his book, Mathematics and the Physical World:

Finally, a study of mathematics and its contributions to the sciences exposes a deep question. Mathematics is man-made. The concepts, the broad ideas, the logical standards and methods of reasoning, and the ideals which have been steadfastly pursued for over two thousand years were fashioned by human beings. Yet with this product of his fallible mind man has surveyed spaces too vast for his imagination to encompass; …and he has discovered particles too small to be seen with the most powerful microscope. Cold symbols and formulas completely at the disposition of man have enabled him to secure a portentous grip on the universe. Some explanation of this marvelous power is called for.

INC on April 20, 2008 at 7:40 PM

3) You haven’t provided any logical reason that because a space shuttle was engineered, that means cells were designed

Way to go.

e-pirate on April 20, 2008 at 7:35 PM

Actually there is a logical reason.

You assume the space shuttle was designed because it makes sense to you. Yet you’ve never seen it built, you have zero personal empirical knowledge that it was designed. You assume it because others told you it was, and it seems illogical to you that it could have occurred by chance. You accept this without question.

Yet your argument against the design of the cell is that there is no empirical proof of God?

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 7:40 PM

Mr. Nickel also describes an article written by Eugene Wigner (Nobel prize in physics), in 1960, titled The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences:

Wigner continues to express his bafflement over the fact that “it is not at all natural that ‘laws of nature’ exist, much less that man is able to discern them.” Concerning the effectiveness of Newton’s law of universal gravitation, he says that it “has proved accurate beyond all reasonable expectations.”

He continues to illustrate the mysterious usefulness of mathematics by citing the application of imaginary numbers (e.g., √-1) in the laws of quantum physics. First, he observes that “the use of complex numbers is in this case not a calculational trick of applied mathematics but comes close to being a necessity in the formulation of the laws of quantum mechanics.: Given this fact, he responds with this amazing remark, “It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here”

Finally, he concludes, “Fundamentally, we do not know why our theories work so well.” And to this, he concludes:

“The miracle of appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.”

INC on April 20, 2008 at 7:41 PM

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 7:39 PM

Both snarky and ignorant…

The scientists featured in the movie who were mistreated and fired were highly respected for their work UNTIL they so much as mentioned intelligent design, let alone endorsed it.

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 7:42 PM

Speaking of NASA, Mr. Nickel also describes Dr. Remo J. Ruffini, a physicist at Princeton [at that time, I suppose], when he “reacted to the successful landing of men on the moon:

How a mathematical structure can correspond to nature is a mystery. One way out is just to say that the language in which nature speaks is the language of mathematics. This begs the question. Often we are both shocked and surprised by the correspondence between mathematics and nature, especially when the experiment confirms that our mathematical model describes nature perfectly.

INC on April 20, 2008 at 7:42 PM

The level of complexity of patterns in the observed world around us screams of a supremely intelligent Creator, for anyone with ears to hear and eyes to see.

Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 7:39 PM

“Unfortunately, no one can be “shown” the Matrix. You have to see it for yourself.”

“You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”

— Morpheus

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 7:44 PM

apacalyps on April 19, 2008 at 6:17 PM
apacalyps on April 19, 2008 at 6:24 PM
apacalyps on April 19, 2008 at 6:28 PM

Agreed and well said.

(Still working my way through the comments…I’m only up to page 13!)

Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 7:46 PM

This is the last item worth commenting on before I abandon this thread to its inevitable fate. Of all the ideas presented and debated here so far, this one required the least amount of understanding to comprehend, and the continuted confusion on this point is the least justifiable of all of the absurdities proffered:

Translation: I’m going to throw some more crap and then run away…

Your thesis hinges on the idea that atheism is a belief system. Of course, atheism is not a belief system—it is a dis-belief nonsystem.

It had to hurt your brain to write that…

You say, “I realize that Atheists think they are BELIEVERS in a nonreligion…,” but realization is not an accurate descriptor of your mental process. You are not a believer in nonIslam; you are simply not a believer in Islam. I am not a believer in a non-religion; I am simply not a believer in any relgiion.

You can fool yourself all you want, doesn’t change anything.

You can be reasonably defined as a Christian, but it would be absurd to attempt to define you as a non-Hindu non-ballerina non-midget non-axe murderer non-fish. When you get up in the morning, you say to yourself, “Praise Jesus,” not “I am going to make it a point to live on land and not have gills today.”

Sorry, wrong again. I have never said I was a Christian.

Your attempt to cobble all non-theists into a singular belief system to which you ascribe the status of a religion is just plain foolish. I, like you, am also a non-Hindu, so by your reasoning we should be 100% in agreement as to what beliefs we do have. Clearly this is not the case.

I agree, it’s not the case. But it doesn’t prove your position.

Further, I mentioned Objectivism and Marxism as two possible belief systems atheists could choose, and said that they are very different. You seem to have failed to understand this point as well, so allow me to elucidate. A Marxist is a dialectic atomist, meaning he believes that all phenomena both human and natural are the result of the inalterable stochastic motions of atoms whose future states are determined fully by their initial conditions. An Objectivist, by contrast, believes that humans possess free will and are not slaves to fate. Clearly these are fundamentally opposed fundamental beliefs, yet you allege that the Marxist shares one and the same religion/belief system with the Objectivist.

Two points here. First, you opened your post by stating that Atheism is “not a belief system—it is a dis-belief nonsystem.” and now you are trying to explain to me what an Atheist can choose to believe in… make up your mind. Second, you must be running on fumes to think that I said Marxism and Objectivism were in any way related other than that they are both belief systems.

Remember, you are an atheist with respect to all of the world’s religions save for one. You derive much of your identity from the one that you do believe in, but you derive none of your identity from the ones you don’t believe in. I have no more in common with an atheist who happens also to be a Scientologist than you have in common with a non-Zoroastrian who happens to believe in the gods of Norse mythology.

So, you have now defined an Atheist as someone who may believe in a religion with a God or not. As long as that God isn’t connected with Christianity? I think your true position is coming into focus now. Wow…

hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 6:48 PM

You keep on revving that lawnmower engine mind of yours and enjoy life in the slow lane.

TheCulturalist on April 20, 2008 at 7:49 PM

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 7:44 PM

I’m deeply honored.

:-)

Anyone can choose to take the red pill…

Here are some of my other favorite quotes:

I’m trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You’re the one that has to walk through it.

You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Remember, all I am offering is the truth. Nothing more.

Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 7:51 PM

Science is the study of the physical world and its origin.
Religion is the study of the world of spriit and its origin.

Science has shown that the physical world came into existance at a unique and identifiable (1) time and (2)place (they have a specific time: along time ago, and a specific place: a long way away) where (3) energy became matter and (4) started moving outward at an (5) increasing rate. These five scientific facts can not explain the how or why these these events defy accepted laws of physics (energy does not change into matter by itself, nor does matter expand at an increasing rate without some outside force inputing energy into the system). The academic discussion needs to continue on all fronts as to the how and why in explaining the universe that we live in. A Creator is certainly a viable explanation of the scientific facts. At least the Biblical account (written 3400 years ago) seems to describe this process long before anybody understood modern physics or the mechanics of the solar system/universe. E=mC2 is the equation explaining the transformation of energy into matter (and back again). I wonder where Moses came up with the idea?. Once we agree that the physical universe came into existence at a specifc time and place, then we can debate the length of a day (24hr, 1000 yrs, 1 million years, 1 billion years?) As a Christian, that is a discussion I would be happy to engage in. The progress of the Earth’s development over ‘7′ days reflects the scientific facts pretty well - long before geology,biology, physics, and astronomy confirmed the order and process that took place.

Oh, and wouldn’t it be a good idea to understand the nature, character, and purpose of the Creator? There is a lot more information available about God’s nature than any other theory (yes let’s discuss the alien creature theory on this basis.)

jerseyman on April 20, 2008 at 7:52 PM

When space shuttles can grow themselves, repair themselves, and reproduce themselves, you will have proved your point.

theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 7:26 PM

Apples and oranges again.

If I wanted to be asinine like you I could say “let me know when cells are capable for carrying 7 men and tons of cargo into orbit.”

e-pirate on April 20, 2008 at 7:30 PM

I suppose, but how many men and tons of cargo a space shuttle can carry has to do with how big and powerful the space shuttle is, not how complex it is.

How even cells can reproduce themselves, grow themselves, and repair themselves does have to do with complexity.

theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 7:52 PM

Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 7:51 PM

My pleasure. I thought the coincidence was appropriate.

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 7:54 PM

Ota Benga was captured in the Congo by an evolutionist researcher called Samuel Verner in 1904. Ota, whose name meant “friend” in his own language, was 23 years old and married and the father of two children. But he was chained like an animal, put in a cage, and sent to the U.S.A. There, the evolutionary scientists put him in a cage with various species of monkey at the St. Louis World Fair and exhibited him as “the nearest link to man.” Two years later they took him to Bronx Zoo in New York and displayed him with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla called Dinah and an orang-utan called Dohung as “man’s oldest ancestors.” The evolutionist director of the zoo, Dr. William T. Horniday, gave long talks about the pride it gave him to have the “missing link,” and visitors treated Ota in his cage just like an animal. Unfortunately, things didn’t work out that well for Ota Benga (the pygmy put on display in the 1904 St Louis World’s Fair as evidence for evolution). Ota Benga eventually went insane and killed himself.

apacalyps on April 20, 2008 at 5:02 PM

So once again we see how far the evolutionist will go to protect their belief system. Capturing a young man and putting him in a cage with animals in a zoo was all well and good so long as it served their “science.”

I think it should also be mentioned that it was the “un-washed” religious people that found fault with the evolutionist’s display.

The person responsible for this exhibition degrades himself as much as he does the African. Instead of making a beast of this little fellow, he should be put in school for the development of such powers as God gave to him. It is too bad that there is not some society like the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. We send our missionaries to Africa to Christianize the people, and then we bring one here to brutalize him.

Rev. Dr. R. MacArthur of Calvary Baptist Church - September 10, 1906 New York Times

Maxx on April 20, 2008 at 7:56 PM

Both snarky and ignorant…

The scientists featured in the movie who were mistreated and fired were highly respected for their work UNTIL they so much as mentioned intelligent design, let alone endorsed it.

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 7:42 PM

Sweet. Nice to hear the Global Science Conspiracy is keeping things in line.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 7:56 PM

If you don’t think there are thousands of different part numbers in any space shuttle, I think you outed yourself as the janitor down in Houston, not an engineer.

A DNA strand is like 10 feet long, it would not make it very far to the moon. Maybe you ought to read more biology.

e-pirate on April 20, 2008 at 7:39 PM

My seven years at NASA resulted in 20 published papers in technical journals — all before I reached the age of 29. I hold a Ph.D. in Aeronautical/Astronautics from Stanford University — and YOUR credentials are?

You are off by several orders of magnitude. A typical Boeing airplane (I’ve been working on them for 21 years now) such as one of the narrow bodies build in Renton Washington has on the order of 7 million parts.

Yet, I am still convinced that cells are more complex. In fact, I would even venture to say that the airplanes are primitive by comparison. The nano-technology in cells is nothing short of astonishing.

CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 7:56 PM

Sweet. Nice to hear the Global Science Conspiracy is keeping things in line.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 7:56 PM

Are you really in so much denial that you cannot believe that this happens? Or are you completely out of logical arguments and are now resorting to snark? Either way, your credibility is gone.

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 8:00 PM

My seven years at NASA resulted in 20 published papers in technical journals — all before I reached the age of 29. I hold a Ph.D. in Aeronautical/Astronautics from Stanford University — and YOUR credentials are?

You are off by several orders of magnitude. A typical Boeing airplane (I’ve been working on them for 21 years now) such as one of the narrow bodies build in Renton Washington has on the order of 7 million parts.

Yet, I am still convinced that cells are more complex. In fact, I would even venture to say that the airplanes are primitive by comparison. The nano-technology in cells is nothing short of astonishing.

CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 7:56 PM

PWNED.

Forgive him, for he knows not with whom he tangles…

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 8:01 PM

.. while refusing to allow any questions or arguments being raised from any empirical evidence to the contrary …

theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 6:20 PM

This is the heart of the problem with intelligent design:

How can you call a theory that resorts to God empirical? God is not empirical, it’s supernatural. You cannot experiment on God, you can’t test for God.

Creationists claim such a great faith in God, why do they seem so desperately to need the imprimatur of science?

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 6:32 PM

“empirical evidence,” not an “empirical theory” (Would that be an oxymoron?)

theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 8:01 PM

Metaphysics - Beyond the Physical into the Spiritual

All things are governed by universal laws, whether physical or spiritual. In everything there is order. There is a system of design by infinite intelligence. He is a being known as God and many other names. The universal laws are simply an extension of his being.

Meta means above, beyond and behind.

Metaphysical means beyond the physical realm and into the spiritual realm. The metaphysical and physical realm are not two separate realities but they are just different levels of the same reality.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of all reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, appearance and substance, form and essence.

To call one a metaphysician in this traditional, philosophical sense indicates nothing more than his or her interest in attempting to discover what underlies everything.

To examine the nature of physical reality, we must do so from a level above it. Einstein said that we can never solve a problem in the same level of consciousness that it was created with. We have to advance to a higher level to deal with it powerfully.

All things psychological have a spiritual basis behind them. Reality is ultimately the result of spiritual factors.

The Metaphysics was divided into three parts, now regarded as the traditional branches of Western metaphysics, called (1) ontology, (2) theology and (3) universal science. There were also some smaller, perhaps tangential matters: a philosophical lexicon, an attempt to define philosophy in general and several extracts from the Physics repeated verbatim.

Ontology is the study of existence; it has been traditionally defined as ‘the science of being qua being’.

Theology means, here, the study of God or the gods and of questions about the divine.

Universal science is supposed to be the study of so-called first principles, which underlie all other inquiries; an example of such a principle is the law of non-contradiction: A = A, A not = B, Not both A and B. In other words, the elementary laws of logic as Aristotle knew them.

There is an absolute science to all things spiritual and it isn’t mysterious at all. It is only mysterious according to the level of awareness we have. The higher our level of awareness is, the more the mystery is resolved. – Mind Reality

Metaphysics is Mind Science, Universal Science and Spiritual Science.

jp on April 20, 2008 at 8:07 PM

Yet, I am still convinced that cells are more complex. In fact, I would even venture to say that the airplanes are primitive by comparison. The nano-technology in cells is nothing short of astonishing.

CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 7:56 PM

Indeed it is.

And e-pirate …. to begin to understand the unimaginable complexity of the cell, you should read this.

Maxx on April 20, 2008 at 8:07 PM

CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 7:56 PM

Wow… it isn’t often your Collie sits out a post. Perhaps the smoke coming off the keyboard sent him under the kitchen table…

Or he was out in the yard taking a leak and I’m just reading too much into it…

TheCulturalist on April 20, 2008 at 8:10 PM

‘Intelligent Design’ is not science, and so doesn’t belong in a scientific curriculum. It is just Creationism dressed up in pseudo-scientific garb.

MrLynn on April 19, 2008 at 8:22 PM

Um…no.

While all believers of Biblical Creation believe in Intelligent Design, the converse is not true. Not all believers of Intelligent Design believe in Biblical Creation.

Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 8:12 PM

The Romans made advances in engineering that the early Christian world would take more than a thousand years to catch up to. Christian monks did much to preserve what knowledge they could, but it wasn’t until some of the knowledge was brought back from the East that the Renaissance was possible.

dedalus on April 20, 2008 at 6:44 PM

You’re absolutely right that the ancient world did some pretty incredible feats of engineering. Clearly, ancient people were not stupid people just because their science was not as advanced as ours.

But even though they were plenty smart enough, science didn’t really advance much until the modern age.

There were multiple reasons for this, but a big part of it was the Christian belief in a God of order Who was separate from the universe, even though He created it.

Another huge factor was that modern science publishes its findings, rather than locking it up in a vault and allowing it to be seen only by the elite.

And another huge factor was that modern science insists on testing theories with experiments and measurements.

Refusing to allow the discussion of ID does not advance the cause of science.

theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 8:13 PM

1) Evolution doesn’t happen by chance, for the millionth time
….
e-pirate on April 20, 2008 at 7:35 PM

What does cause evolution?

theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 8:15 PM

A Marxist is a dialectic atomist, meaning he believes that all phenomena both human and natural are the result of the inalterable stochastic motions of atoms whose future states are determined fully by their initial conditions. An Objectivist, by contrast, believes that humans possess free will and are not slaves to fate. Clearly these are fundamentally opposed fundamental beliefs, yet you allege that the Marxist shares one and the same religion/belief system with the Objectivist… I have no more in common with an atheist who happens also to be a Scientologist than you have in common with a non-Zoroastrian who happens to believe in the gods of Norse mythology.

hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 6:48 PM

There are only TWO religions.

Christianity and satanism.

No man can serve two masters

Evolution is an anti-Christ religion, it denies the divinity of Jesus Christ.

It means absolutely nothing if a marxist satanist disagrees with a objectivist satanist about free will…both are satanists and both will be cast into the lake of fire because they did not repent and put their faith in Jesus Christ.

Call yourself whatever you like: a atheist, a buddhist, a hindu, a jewish, a muslim, a pagan etc. etc. it doesn’t make a bit of difference.

No man is saved except through Christ Jesus!

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

“Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

“He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

“Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

“And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; He who does not have the Son of God does not have life.”

SaintOlaf on April 20, 2008 at 8:17 PM

Are you really in so much denial that you cannot believe that this happens? Or are you completely out of logical arguments and are now resorting to snark? Either way, your credibility is gone.

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 8:00 PM

Oh no, my credibility! Sadly I must now resign from the International Society of Credible Internet Experts on Pointless Arguments. Hopefullly I can still keep my membership in the American Smart-Ass Association.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 8:18 PM

Oh no, my credibility! Sadly I must now resign from the International Society of Credible Internet Experts on Pointless Arguments. Hopefullly I can still keep my membership in the American Smart-Ass Association.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 8:18 PM

I’m sure you can. Anyone can be a Smart-Ass!

theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 8:22 PM

Wow… it isn’t often your Collie sits out a post. Perhaps the smoke coming off the keyboard sent him under the kitchen table…

Or he was out in the yard taking a leak and I’m just reading too much into it…

TheCulturalist on April 20, 2008 at 8:10 PM

He gets bored when I start “talking shop.” I think he likes the political threads better.

CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 8:23 PM

…Anyone can be a Smart-Ass!

theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 8:22 PM

Even talking collies.

My collie says:

Grrrr.

CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 8:24 PM

Come on, 2000!

(Incidentally confirming the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Observer Effect.)

theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 8:26 PM

“empirical evidence,” not an “empirical theory” (Would that be an oxymoron?)

theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 8:01 PM

Good question, I’d say no, it wouldn’t be an oxymoron. A good theory - an empirical theory, to coin a phrase - relies on emprical evidence (shouldn’t that be redundant?). Not supernatural, inexplicable beings.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 8:28 PM

I have to admit that a lot of this was very difficult for me to grasp (re-read many things) but I truely enjoyed reading it anyway…

I love this site because the members, for the most part, are exceptional people from whom I learn a lot.

CCRWM on April 20, 2008 at 8:28 PM

theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 8:01 PM

Also, sorry for mangling the wording of your post. I still stand by what I wrote, of course.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 8:31 PM

“Life is a game of chess, many of its players, however, are playing checkers. They just don’t know the difference.”

TheCulturalist on April 20, 2008 at 8:34 PM

You assume the space shuttle was designed because it makes sense to you. Yet you’ve never seen it built, you have zero personal empirical knowledge that it was designed. You assume it because others told you it was, and it seems illogical to you that it could have occurred by chance. You accept this without question.

Yet your argument against the design of the cell is that there is no empirical proof of God?

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 7:40 PM

I don’t “assume” the space shuttle was designed because it makes sense, I “know” the space shuttle was designed because I know who did it, how they did it, the underlying principles, am familiar with the fabrication and assembly method, etc. I’m not somebody who says “wow this looks complex, it must have been DESIGNED” because complexity does not infer design on its own.

My seven years at NASA resulted in 20 published papers in technical journals — all before I reached the age of 29. I hold a Ph.D. in Aeronautical/Astronautics from Stanford University — and YOUR credentials are?

You are off by several orders of magnitude. A typical Boeing airplane (I’ve been working on them for 21 years now) such as one of the narrow bodies build in Renton Washington has on the order of 7 million parts.

Yet, I am still convinced that cells are more complex. In fact, I would even venture to say that the airplanes are primitive by comparison. The nano-technology in cells is nothing short of astonishing.

CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 7:56 PM

Last night it became clear we both live in Seattle. Now it’s obvious we both work for Boeing haha. I’m part time in Auburn and part time in Everett on the 787.

I said “space shuttles have thousands of parts” and you said “but wait, it’s millions!” and that’s supposed to disprove my assertion that a space shuttle has more components than a cell, how exactly?

PWNED.

Forgive him, for he knows not with whom he tangles…

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 8:01 PM

You blew it again. I’m also an aerospace engineer who works for the same company. Oops! Moreover, I’ve got a basic understanding of cellular biology so “gee whiz there’s a lot going on inside a cell, there must be a God” arguments don’t impress me.

Sorry to take away your pwnd points though.

What does cause evolution?

theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 8:15 PM

I thought everybody would know by know because the evil scientists are force feeding it to all our schoolchildren? Obviously we need to crank up the conspiracy for “condition: red” or something.

e-pirate on April 20, 2008 at 8:38 PM

I still stand by what I wrote, of course.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 8:31 PM

“You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”

— Morpheus

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 8:39 PM

You blew it again. I’m also an aerospace engineer who works for the same company. Oops! Moreover, I’ve got a basic understanding of cellular biology so “gee whiz there’s a lot going on inside a cell, there must be a God” arguments don’t impress me.

Sorry to take away your pwnd points though.

e-pirate on April 20, 2008 at 8:38 PM

Uhm…you did nothing of the sort.

Are you claiming, as Darwin wrongly thought, that the cell is not complex?

I thought everybody would know by know because the evil scientists are force feeding it to all our schoolchildren? Obviously we need to crank up the conspiracy for “condition: red” or something.

e-pirate on April 20, 2008 at 8:38 PM

Is this your fancy way of dodging the question?

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 8:41 PM

A good theory - an empirical theory, to coin a phrase - relies on emprical evidence (shouldn’t that be redundant?).
RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 8:28 PM

You’re right a good theory does rely on empirical evidence that anyone can test.

Re-read to figure out how to test God’s existence.

God is a testable hypothesis.

He tells you how to test His existence.

Understand that your un-righteousness is an abomination before the Holy God, and turn from your sin.(That is repentance)

Put all of your trust in Jesus Christ and be born again.

Don’t just believe in Him….put Him on like the parachute that saves you!

If you do this you will know that He is real!

Jesus promises to manifest Himself to all who repent and trust Him.

He will give you a new heart and new desires..you will want to obey God’s commandments.

You will be a new creature! All of your old hurt and hate and hang ups will no longer effect you!
SaintOlaf on April 20, 2008 at 5:29 PM

How can you say God is not a testable hypothesis just because you haven’t tested His promise yet?

Try it first and then tell me about it.

SaintOlaf on April 20, 2008 at 7:38 PM

SaintOlaf on April 20, 2008 at 8:43 PM

I admit that the level of my knowledge of biology is cursory, at best. But if I had to draw and analogy between Aeronautical Engineering and cell technology, I’d say that cells are more like the factories that we build the airplanes in. The people assembling the airplanes retrieve drawings out of the computer database (just like the RNA retrieves instructions from DNA in the nucleus), and there are control codes in the factory (areas in the airplane factory where specific tasks are completed) and these sorta’ remind of the areas in the cell structure where the proteins that are designed for specific functions are built. The parts then have to be assembled into the correct place in the airplane. A similar thing happens within a cell. In effect, a biological cell is like a nano-airplane factory.

CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 8:44 PM

“empirical evidence,” not an “empirical theory” (Would that be an oxymoron?)

theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 8:01 PM

Good question, I’d say no, it wouldn’t be an oxymoron. A good theory - an empirical theory, to coin a phrase - relies on emprical evidence (shouldn’t that be redundant?). Not supernatural, inexplicable beings.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 8:28 PM

I would consider that theories by definition are not empirical, but evidence can be. Scientific theories are not empirical, but they are based on empirical evidence. That’s part of the scientific method.

Unfortunately, historical events are not empirical evidence and are not covered in the scientific method. Science concerns itself with the world that is now, not what happened in the past.

Which makes the theory of evolution a misfit in the scientific realm in many ways, since it’s so focused on explaining how the complex world we now have could have happened without supernatural intervention.

theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 8:47 PM

some questions for Intelligent Design -

-what is the hypothesis of intelligent design, and how can it be tested?

-what positive evidence has been found to support the existence of a designer? I won’t accept the overwhelming complexity of life as an answer. I’ve heard those arguments and find them unconvincing - at the very least they’re unproveable. You can’t prove that something didn’t happen. A good scientific theory doesn’t rely one line of reasoning, or one line of evidence, what other support does Intelligent design have?

-what sorts of experiments are being done - or can be done - to confirm the existence of a designer?

-what new avenues of research are suggested by intelligent design? Evolution has obvious implications for research into genetics and heredity, for example.

and one question for creationists in general-

-what is the role of faith in paradigm that includes an empirical basis for the belief in God? In other words, if God meant for us to be able to prove its existence, why wait until now? Bonus points if you answer, “the lord works in mysterious ways,” just because it’s a really ironic thing for someone who claims to know exactly how God works to say.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 8:52 PM

ronsfi, from your perspective:

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

From my perspective:

Evolution is a con job 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.

When you guys make outrageous, unsupported claims based on superstition, and disparage the greatest mind in history (God), I take umbrage.

Where does the intelligence come from in your belief system?

Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 8:55 PM

SaintOlaf on April 20, 2008 at 8:43 PM

Sorry, sir, no sale, but I sincerely appreciate the sentiment.

Does it bother you that so many people all over the world are born without ever having a chance to convert to Christianity - that your God condemns those people to eternal torture for behaving how God created them to behave? I’m an athiest for a lot of different reasons, but I’ll never believe in Christianity because I find that very proposition morally unacceptable.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 8:59 PM

I’m not somebody who says “wow this looks complex, it must have been DESIGNED” because complexity does not infer design on its own.

Surely you would not look at a space shuttle and think it happened by random chance? I think a complex working machine does imply an intelligence behind it, and it’s a little hard to believe any one would argue with that.

Except when it comes to evolution, of course, which is only a valid scientific theory if it occurs randomly rather than intelligently.

What does cause evolution?

theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 8:15 PM

I thought everybody would know by know because the evil scientists are force feeding it to all our schoolchildren? Obviously we need to crank up the conspiracy for “condition: red” or something.

e-pirate on April 20, 2008 at 8:38 PM

You’d think so, wouldn’t you?

theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 8:59 PM

MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 3:17 AM

I may be wrong, but I see no way that geometry could be used to determine the distance to a star that is 23.5 million light years from earth. How would the angle be figured?

Johan Klaus on April 20, 2008 at 8:59 PM

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 8:52 PM

I want to add to your list of questions:

To the IDers, what predictive power does the so-called theory of Intelligent Design have? How can this theory be used to gain new scientific information? Please provide an example.

HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 9:01 PM

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 8:52 PM

Mr. Snarky wants his “serious questions” answered. LOL

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 9:02 PM

Evolution does create things. Evolution created Jeffery Dahmer.

If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then? Then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing??

Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994

Maxx on April 20, 2008 at 9:04 PM

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 8:52 PM

My understanding of science is that theories are disproven and discarded, but never proven. The longer a theory stands without being disproven, the greater the liklihood that the theory is an accurate model of reality.

There are even caveats to this, though. Newtonian mechanics still works pretty d*mn fine on the macroscopic scale, but Einsten’s space-time continuum is more accurate describing the universe at it’s largest. Quantuum mechanics — well let’s just not go there. We are so far down on the learning curve at the atomic level, no one knows where that stuff is going. The only thing that I am convinced of is that the underlying fabric of the universe is probablistic, not deterministic. Sorry Einstein.

Dawkins has already attempted to prove via computer simulation the highly complex systems can arise from primitive computer code. He claims success. I looked at what he had put together and concluded that he is both a fraud and a religious fanatic for the god of atheism.

My collie says:

Dawkins is a pathetic hate-filled girlie-man.

CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 9:04 PM

Does it bother you that so many people all over the world are born without ever having a chance to convert to Christianity - that your God condemns those people to eternal torture for behaving how God created them to behave? I’m an athiest for a lot of different reasons, but I’ll never believe in Christianity because I find that very proposition morally unacceptable.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 8:59 PM

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 9:05 PM

CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 9:04 PM

I agree with 100% of what you wrote, and you little dog, too.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 9:09 PM

“your” little dog too, even…

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 9:09 PM

Dawkins has already attempted to prove via computer simulation the highly complex systems can arise from primitive computer code. He claims success. I looked at what he had put together and concluded that he is both a fraud and a religious fanatic for the god of atheism.

well, ok, I don’t precisely agree with this, but I can see where you would think it.

sorry for the triple-post.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 9:12 PM

Dr William B. Provine on what evolution teaches.

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear. There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.

Dr William B. Provine, Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University
Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994

Maxx on April 20, 2008 at 9:13 PM

Does it bother you that so many people all over the world are born without ever having a chance to convert to Christianity - that your God condemns those people to eternal torture for behaving how God created them to behave? I’m an athiest for a lot of different reasons, but I’ll never believe in Christianity because I find that very proposition morally unacceptable.
RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 8:59 PM

Great question.

Men are justly and fittingly condemned based upon the fact that they are sinners.

Indeed, they are sinners who have failed to act responsibly on what God has already revealed to them — whether through the light of creation (Rom. 1), through the light of conscience (Rom. 2), or through the light of Christ (Rom. 3).

If people respond to whatever light they do have, then God will send them the light of the gospel.

Because no one has been kept in the dark about God’s existence, we’re all accountable directly to Him (Luke 12:47-48).

your God condemns those people to eternal torture for behaving how God created them to behave?

God did not create to people to sin.

God gave us free will because He loves us.

We have already established that God has put His moral Law in the heart’s of all mankind.

This is something you cannot explain with the non scientific theory of evolution.

I’ll never believe in Christianity because I find that very proposition morally unacceptable.

If that is all that is preventing you from coming to life through Jesus Christ…then you might as well come home…your “proposition” doesn’t hold up.

SaintOlaf on April 20, 2008 at 9:17 PM

MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 3:17 AM

An example of teaching half truths.

It is often overlooked that in Doppler’s publications (and also Einstein’s in his discussion of the Doppler effect) he explicitly acknowledges that his formulae are only approximate since he made several mathematical approximations in his derivation. Doppler’s derivation is repeated more or less verbatim in most modern textbooks but often without the warning that the formulas are only valid in some (experimentally often seen) limits

Johan Klaus on April 20, 2008 at 9:19 PM

Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 7:51 PM

My pleasure. I thought the coincidence was appropriate.

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 7:54 PM

Actually, it’s not coincidence. “The Matrix” movies did not evolve…they were created and are the direct result of Intelligent Design.

The Matrix…Old Testament Prophecy about “The One” fulfilled.
The Matrix Reloaded…New Testament
The Matrix Revolutions…Revelation

Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 9:20 PM

Sorry, sir, no sale, but I sincerely appreciate the sentiment.

Does it bother you that so many people all over the world are born without ever having a chance to convert to Christianity - that your God condemns those people to eternal torture for behaving how God created them to behave? I’m an athiest for a lot of different reasons, but I’ll never believe in Christianity because I find that very proposition morally unacceptable.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 8:59 PM

Saint Olaf possesses a mastery of Biblical scripture that far surpasses my own. He may not agree with me. That’s okay. There are many Christian sects that interpret scripture differently.

That said. I do not agree with the statement that you just made. My reading of the books attributed to Solomon (written nearly 1000 years before the earthly appearance of Jesus) seem to suggest that God judges humans based on what they know. One can infer (as I did) that people that have never heard the message of the Gospels will not be condemned for rejecting the Messiah — since they have never heard of Him.

I also find it amusing that you set yourself up as a moral authority that presumes that its judgements are more righteous and fair than those of God himself. I am sure you are swell guy, and all, but allow me to introduce you to my Calvinist collie:

My collie says:

All of mankind is total depraved.

You just like to say that because you’re a dog.

BTW, ask yourself this: Where does my concept of “fairness” come from? I challenge you to name more than one thing in life that is fair. I can only think of one thing. So if “fairness” is so rare, where does the concept come from?

CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 9:20 PM

One more question for IDers:

If Intelligent Design is indeed scientific and is the result of ‘following the data where it leads’, why does this comment thread contain so many Bible quotes and Gospel messages?

Seriously, can somebody explain how Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific theory and not religion trying to sneak into the science classroom?

HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 9:24 PM

If that is all that is preventing you from coming to life through Jesus Christ…then you might as well come home…your “proposition” doesn’t hold up.

SaintOlaf on April 20, 2008 at 9:17 PM

Even with free will someone born into, for example, a Muslim family in Iran doesn’t have the same opportunity to accept Christ as someone who was born into a Christian family anwhere else. I brought it up, so that’s my response, but we could go back and forth like this until the thread hits 3000 and not convince each other of anything.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 9:26 PM

Evolution is an anti-Christ religion, it denies the divinity of Jesus Christ.

SaintOlaf on April 20, 2008 at 8:17 PM

The Catholic church has no problem with the science of evolution. The Catholics do not deny the divinity of Jesus.

dedalus on April 20, 2008 at 9:29 PM

not religion trying to sneak into the science classroom?

HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 9:24 PM

Religion has ALREADY snuck into the class room through the non scientific official state religion of evolution/secular humanism!

Unfortunately it is a anti-Christ/satanic religion and it’s results have been catastrophic for this country and others.

SaintOlaf on April 20, 2008 at 9:30 PM

Religion has ALREADY snuck into the class room through the non scientific official state religion of evolution/secular humanism!
SaintOlaf on April 20, 2008 at 9:30 PM

That is not an answer to the question I asked. That is a red hering. I’ll repeat my questions. I am seriously looking for an intelligent answer to these questions:

Can an ID-er explain how Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific theory and not religion trying to sneak into the science classroom?

What predictive power does the so-called theory of Intelligent Design have? How can this theory be used to gain new scientific information? Please provide an example.

HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 9:33 PM

some questions for Intelligent Design -

-what is the hypothesis of intelligent design, and how can it be tested?

-what positive evidence has been found to support the existence of a designer? I won’t accept the overwhelming complexity of life as an answer. I’ve heard those arguments and find them unconvincing - at the very least they’re unproveable. You can’t prove that something didn’t happen. A good scientific theory doesn’t rely one line of reasoning, or one line of evidence, what other support does Intelligent design have?

-what sorts of experiments are being done - or can be done - to confirm the existence of a designer?

-what new avenues of research are suggested by intelligent design? Evolution has obvious implications for research into genetics and heredity, for example.

and one question for creationists in general-

-what is the role of faith in paradigm that includes an empirical basis for the belief in God? In other words, if God meant for us to be able to prove its existence, why wait until now? Bonus points if you answer, “the lord works in mysterious ways,” just because it’s a really ironic thing for someone who claims to know exactly how God works to say.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 8:52 PM

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 8:52 PM

I want to add to your list of questions:

To the IDers, what predictive power does the so-called theory of Intelligent Design have? How can this theory be used to gain new scientific information? Please provide an example.

HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 9:01 PM

I’d say ID is in an analogous situation to Punctuated Equilibrium: it attempts to address the a flaw in the theory of evolution: the unlikeliness of supposedly random mutations to result in evolution in a certain direction, and the sheer improbability of multiple random mutations just happening to give us a complicated structure that depends on all the mutations coming together at the right time.

Such as the eye, the cell, flight, etc.

The problem is that the questions ID raises strike at the heart of the entire theory of evolution. If these mutations that result in new structures/features/species do not occur both randomly and effectively simultaneously, then evolution might not be a purely naturalistic phenomenon.

Of course, it will be very hard for ID proponents to answer any of the questions proposed if questioning evolution is a fireable offense…

theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 9:34 PM

…but we could go back and forth like this until the thread hits 3000 and not convince each other of anything.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 9:26 PM

And your point is? I thought that was precisely what we were trying to do here, viz. get the comment count past the threshold where AllahPundit shuts down commenting in total exasperation.

CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 9:35 PM

HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 9:24 PM

Any theory should be open to debate. Stifling debate is the problem.

Johan Klaus on April 20, 2008 at 9:39 PM

CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 9:35 PM

this time i’m convinced your collie was laughing too hard to comment…

TheCulturalist on April 20, 2008 at 9:39 PM

Seriously, can somebody explain how Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific theory and not religion trying to sneak into the science classroom?

HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 9:24 PM

plurium interrogationum

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 9:45 PM

Of course, it will be very hard for ID proponents to answer any of the questions proposed if questioning evolution is a fireable offense…

theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 9:34 PM

You’re not going to get fired for answering the questions, so what do you think? The questions HelsSailing and I (most of my questions, anyway) are asking are fundamental questions that every scientific theory has to be able to answer to even be considered a scientific theory in the first place.

Just want to add, the evidence that any scientists have actually lost their jobs over intelligent design is murky (see here).

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 9:46 PM

…but we could go back and forth like this until the thread hits 3000 and not convince each other of anything.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 9:26 PM

And your point is? I thought that was precisely what we were trying to do here, viz. get the comment count past the threshold where AllahPundit shuts down commenting in total exasperation.

CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 9:35 PM

A valid question. I don’t think it’s possible for evolution to be proven scientifically. Far too many things we just don’t know, and science that is exclusively concerned with what happened in the past verges on history rather than pure science.

Frankly, it’s far too easy to raise questions that no evolutionist can really answer. Which in part explains some of the hostility to ID.

On the other hand, ID is relatively new, and primarily focused on the shortcomings of evolution as a theory rather than proposing a new theory. It’s probably not reasonable to expect ID to be a full-blown scientific theory alternative to evolution. It’s more of a criticism of one of the less sensible aspects of evolutionary thinking: explaining how truly random mutations could have given us complex and interdependent systems arising full-blown like Athena out of the head of Zeus. (Oops. Nearly said Venus.)

And obviously, if ID really refers to God as the Intelligence as some insist, it’s pretty well established you can’t either prove or disprove God’s existence to someone who doesn’t want to be convinced.

theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 9:47 PM

The Meaning of Evolution

They [most Americans] believe that the Earth is billions of years old and that life evolved gradually from simple to complex forms. But they also believe that evolution was a means by which God carried out a plan to create humans. For tactical reasons, Darwinists don’t rush to tell all these people that they are missing the point, but all in good time. Let people first learn that evolution is a fact. They can be told later what evolution means.

Phillip E. Johnson, Professor of law at Boalt Hall, University of California at Berkeley.
Unbelievers [in evolution] Unwelcome in the Science Lab, Los Angeles Times, November 3,1990.

Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.

G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.

Maxx on April 20, 2008 at 9:48 PM

Most people understand the difference between their mind and their body. They’ve got two-thirds of the picture. What many do not understand is the other third…the spirit realm. God is in three parts: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Man is created in God’s image and likewise is in three parts: mind, body, and spirit. Most people feed their mind and feed their body, but starve their spirit. That is why so many people are spiritually starving, and search for something to fill that need. But, just as there is junk food for the body, there is junk food for the spirit, and in my opinion one of the vendors is Oprah. No matter what your spiritual beliefs, if you are a HotAir reader chances are you know that Obama is a deceiver and Oprah is part of his fan club. If she’s that wrong about Obama, it should be easy to see that she is also wrong about where to go to feed the hunger of your spirit.

And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
John 6:35 (New King James Version)

Whether you realize it or not, there is a battle raging for your spirit and your soul. It’s called Spiritual Warfare. If you have eyes to see, you see evidence of Spiritual Warfare right here in the 19 pages of comments.

While I don’t always agree with SaintOlaf’s delivery (the truth must be spoken in love in order for it to be heard), he is usually correct with the truth he presents. This link is evidence of spiritual warfare:

SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 9:51 PM

Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 9:48 PM

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 9:46 PM

The questions you asked are loaded questions because they require lengthy answers which aren’t appropriate in a forum like this. For crying out loud, college courses don’t even cover all the information needed to make the case.

So the person to whom the question is posed has a dilemma posed by you: Either answer sincerely and risk looking long winded and having his comments parsed ad infinitum; or not bothering to answer and looking weak by being nonresponsive.

It’s a trap to ask such broad questions.

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 9:50 PM

Adios Pope Benedict……. have a safe flight….. remember us in your prayers.

Seven Percent Solution on April 20, 2008 at 9:53 PM

plurium interrogationum

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 9:45 PM

I did not try to baffle anybody with loaded or trick questions. I asked two understandable questions that I need answered before I will be convinced that ID is anything but pseudo-science. I’m not sure why you think I am asking too many trick questions. Similar questions are necessary for any hypothesis hoping to win debate in a scientific forum.

I will try again:
Can an ID-er explain how Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific theory and not religion trying to sneak into the science classroom?

What predictive power does the so-called theory of Intelligent Design have? How can this theory be used to gain new scientific information? Please provide an example.

HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 9:53 PM

can’t get “something from nothing”, that is anti-science and anti-intellectual to the core.

jp on April 20, 2008 at 9:54 PM

Can an ID-er explain how Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific theory and not religion trying to sneak into the science classroom?

see this interview posted several times in this thread

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4609561480192587449&hl=en

jp on April 20, 2008 at 9:56 PM

I will try again:
Can an ID-er explain how Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific theory and not religion trying to sneak into the science classroom?

Yes. There, somebody answered your question.

What predictive power does the so-called theory of Intelligent Design have? How can this theory be used to gain new scientific information? Please provide an example.

HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 9:53 PM

Your question begs the question (which is its logical flaw) with it’s rhetoric of “so-called theory.” Care to rephrase? How about asking a more specific question so the person who answers doesn’t look long winded?

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 9:56 PM

Fossten:

The questions you asked are loaded questions because they require lengthy answers which aren’t appropriate in a forum like this. For crying out loud, college courses don’t even cover all the information needed to make the case.

The questions I posed to not require college courses to answer. They are not that complicated. Point to a link that does provide these answers if you want.

HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 9:56 PM

HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 9:56 PM

Link

Link

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 9:59 PM

Fossten:

Care to rephrase?

I am not convinced that ID is a scientific theory, and I asked for some reasoning to explain that it was. Until then, I regard ID as psuedo-science with no scientific explanatory or predictive power. If I call ID a threory off the top, I already concede my case. I need to be convinced before I call it a theory. My phrasing stands.

HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 10:01 PM

We don’t always get answers to our questions.

For example, I still want an answer to my earlier question,
viz. “Where does our concept of fairness come from?”

The only thing in life that’s fair is…you guessed it… death.

Many people protest when I say this - but I’m not talking about the way that people die. I’ll agree that some people die much more horribly than others. I’m not talking about that. I simply saying that once you are dead, you are dead. It’s fair only because there are no exceptions. Even the Lord himself died (well, physically anyhow, and then rose from the dead). Death is uniform. It’s ubiquitous. That’s fair. I can’t think of a single additional thing in life that’s fair, can you?

So if fairness is so rare, why does each one of us have the concept of “fairness” so deeply ingrained in our psyches?

My collie says:

Anyone got a good scripture reference for this one?

CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 10:05 PM

answers in genesis is most certainly not ID. Ken Ham is old school young earth creationism to the core. If ID claims to be a scientific theory with neutrality to religion. a link to answers in genesis is not going to convince me of that ID claim.

That second link was just insulting.

HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 10:05 PM

HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 10:01 PM

I gave you two links; start reading.

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 10:06 PM

The questions you asked are loaded questions because they require lengthy answers which aren’t appropriate in a forum like this. For crying out loud, college courses don’t even cover all the information needed to make the case.

So the person to whom the question is posed has a dilemma posed by you: Either answer sincerely and risk looking long winded and having his comments parsed ad infinitum; or not bothering to answer and looking weak by being nonresponsive.

It’s a trap to ask such broad questions.

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 9:50 PM

Thank you for that epic cop-out.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 10:07 PM

answers in genesis is most certainly not ID. Ken Ham is old school young earth creationism to the core. If ID claims to be a scientific theory with neutrality to religion. a link to answers in genesis is not going to convince me of that ID claim.

That second link was just insulting.

HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 10:05 PM

There is plenty of information on the web about ID. If you want to research it, by all means do so. It is not my job to condense thousands of articles down to a single paragraph for you. If you’re truly curious about it you would be out there reading up on it from unbiased sources rather than posting on this forum using anti-ID rhetoric.

My phrasing stands.

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 10:08 PM

Thank you for that epic cop-out.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 10:07 PM

Following your epic logical flaws? Hardly.

fossten on April 20, 2008 at 10:09 PM

Of course, if the Biblical scholars point-out that Enoch and Elijah did not die, that only underscores my point - because then, even death isn’t fair.

So where does our concept of fairness come from?

CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 10:09 PM

Anyone got a good scripture reference for this one?
CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 10:05 PM

Ecclesiastes 2:14 The wise man’s eyes [are] in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness: and I myself perceived also that one event happeneth to them all.
Ecclesiastes 2:15 Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also [is] vanity.

labrat on April 20, 2008 at 10:09 PM

HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 9:53 PM

Is global warming pseudo-science?

Johan Klaus on April 20, 2008 at 10:10 PM

No my arguments don’t require faith. At all.

Your argument for evolution has no more merit than the Christian argument for intelligent design. No scientist alive has observed evolution.

disparage one the greatest minds in history, I take umbrage.

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

Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 10:10 PM

oops, submitted too early…I’ll fix it in a minute…

Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 10:11 PM

It’s “that one event”, death, that none of us can escape, and we’ll all know the truth the second we draw our last breath.

labrat on April 20, 2008 at 10:12 PM

-

MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 7:20 PM

So you had to post it three times to try to get a response, like a child crying…read my link and you will understand…on second thought, you won’t be able to understand.
That is why you can’t be a Christian, you only know what is spoon fed to you…you actually have to do a little research and study. If it isn’t handed to you, you create some weird analogy to a Hebrew (Jewish) scholar and Clinton…do you think Clinton is Jewish, I don’t get it. Are you one of the JOOOOO haters who see a Jewish conspiracy behind everything?
Social Darwinism at its finest, posted by MB4…

right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 10:12 PM

I saw this movie today. It was really good. I enjoyed it. I had trepidations about Ben Stein narrating it due to the fact that his voice can sometimes be irritating, but it wasn’t. (In fact, the subject matter and Ben Stein’s presentation and passion for the subject matter kept him from being annoying at all.)

One of the things that I find very odd is that IMDB doesn’t list the movie as being released this week (or at all) on their release page:

http://www.imdb.com/nowplaying/

Note that they have “Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden?” and “The Life Before Her Eyes” listed.

According to Box Office Mojo:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/counts/chart/?yr=2008&wk=16&p=.htm

Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden? opened on 102 screens this week. The Life Before Her Eyes opened on only 8 screens. Expelled opened on over 1000 screens. However, it’s not listed.

I follow movies very, very closely and I have never, ever seen IMDB miss a wide release (over 600 screens) before. Ever. They know every release date. In fact, on their site, they have listed on the page for Expelled:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/

the exact release date. Why was it not on their list?

I call shenanigans. Thousands if not millions look to IMDB for movie news and release dates. Those people had no clue that Expelled was released this week if they did not know from another source. I have never seen IMDB make an oversight of this magnitude. They just don’t. It’s their job and their good at it. Thus, I think that they omitted it on purpose as yet another part of the Main Stream Media’s attempt to silence the debate on this issue. Sigh.

Theophile on April 20, 2008 at 10:13 PM

This thread is nearing the 2000 comment mark.

You realize that the entire thread is ALL about the concept of “fairness.” We are trying to address the question “Is it ‘fair’ that the proponents of ID are excluded from the classroom and debate in an out-of-hand fashion?”

We are arguing about fairness, and yet, we can’t even prove that fairness exists.

CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 10:15 PM

Threads like hese make me so proud of humanity…

Capitana on April 20, 2008 at 10:15 PM

Comment pages: « 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 »


You must be logged in to post a comment.