Movie Review: Expelled
posted at 3:00 pm on April 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
While at CPAC in February, I had an opportunity to attend an advance screening of the new documentary, Expelled: The Movie. Ben Stein focuses on a perceived lack of intellectual freedom afforded to those who either believe in or investigate Intelligent Design theories in the scientific community. I wrote the following review at the time; the producers may have made some changes since, but I don’t believe it would change the thrust of my review. I plan on seeing the theatrical release this weekend, and would recommend it to everyone as at least a way to discuss the values and limitations of scientific inquiry and intellectual openness in American Academia.
The bloggers at CPAC received an invitation to screen a new documentary on academic intolerance called Expelled: The Movie this evening. The documentary features Ben Stein on a quest to understand the near-hysteria caused by scientists who so much as broach the idea of intelligent design in papers or in research. It follows Stein as he interviews professors denied tenure, editors fired, and journalists shunned for touching the subject even at its most innocuous levels.
Before discussing my feelings about the film, which is still in post-production and will not go into release until April, I should explain my approach to the ID/evolution debate. I believe evolution is demonstrably proven in enough examples to say that its effect on variation in species cannot be denied. The example I used tonight in discussing this with another viewer (certainly not the only example) is antibiotic effects on bacteria. Antibiotics that kill 99% of bacteria eventually promote the survival and the expansion of the 1% that resist them, created superbacteria that require another set of antibiotics to cure, and so on.
That said, evolution does not interfere with my faith in God. God certainly could have created the universe with a design that included life. The rational laws of nature would include evolution, as well as the myriad of other rational and mathematically provable mechanisms that undergird nature. In fact, the impulse of man to discover the rational laws of nature began with the belief in a rational God, as scientists understood nature’s rationality to reveal an intelligent Creator.
I’d go deeper than that, but Dinesh D’Souza covers it nicely enough already in his book What’s So Great About Christianity, and it’s getting late enough as it is. Suffice it to say that evolution doesn’t present a threat to my worldview.
Rationally, we have to admit that some use ID as an excuse to teach the more literal form of Creationism that has been used to argue against evolution entirely, especially against teaching evolution in primary-school classrooms. That admission does not appear in Expelled, which is a glaring omission. It tends to take out of context the frustration some scientists have about ID, and its place in polarizing the debate over its use. Properly framed, ID accepts all of the science without accepting its transformation into its own belief system.
What do I mean by that? In this, the film does an excellent job of demonstrating atheism as a belief system. Atheism as represented by Richard Dawkings and others in this film gets exposed as exactly the kind of belief system they claim to despise. They can’t prove God exists — and they can’t prove God doesn’t exist. They make the common fallacy of arguing that absence of evidence amounts to evidence of absence.
But in a way, this is all secondary to the real issue of the film: academic intolerance. The debate over ID vs Darwinism sets the table for a truly disturbing look at academia. Science should be about the free debate and research of ideas and hypotheses for duplicable results and provable theorems. However, as the examples Stein and the film provide amply show, the Darwinist academic establishment will brook no dissent from the orthodoxy — and scientists have to be shown with hidden faces to speak to the issue for the film.
Amusingly, Stein asks people how the first cell came to be. None of the scientists could give him a straight answer. Dawkins himself admits he doesn’t know and that no one else does, either — but postulates that aliens could have brought life to this planet, and then postulates that another alien civilization could have brought life to that planet, and so on. He then concedes that one entity could have been the original source … but insists that entity could not possibly have been God. For this he gives absolutely no evidence at all, relegating it as a belief system somewhat akin to Scientology.
All of this is extremely effective, as are the many allusions made to the Berlin Wall during the film. The theme runs throughout, and it explicitly refers to the defensive academic establishment as having built a wall that tramples on freedom of thought and discourse. Less effective is the heavy references to the Nazis in the movie. Although emotionally affecting for some obvious reasons, the fact is that while the Nazis were mostly Darwinists (along with a lot of other things), the vast majority of Darwinists aren’t Nazis. Certainly the eugenicists in Nazi Germany were mightily influenced by Darwinism, but America had its own eugenicists, which the film points out.
I should point out that the film has not finished production, and that changes will be made between now and its release in April. The filmmakers just completed an interview with Christopher Hitchens and will include it in the final cut. I believe other changes may be made which could address some of the criticisms I’ve written here.
Overall, though, the film presents a powerful argument not for intelligent design as much as for the freedom of scientific inquiry. If scientists get punished for challenging orthodoxy, we will not expand our learning but ossify it in concrete. Expelled: The Movie is entertaining, maddening, funny, and provocative, and well worth your time.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 ... 24 Next »
That is curious…however, if you scroll down, it is listed as the #9 movie in the top 10. I guess they can’t refuse to put it in THAT list.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Yup. I love the fact that open dialog reveals who the real “Agents of Intolerance” are.
…and it’s not the fundamentalist Christians, contrary to what John McCain said.
(McCain condemned evangelist leaders Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as “agents of intolerance” during his 2000 Presidential run)
Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 10:17 PM
So, John McCain, will you support open and honest debate about our origins (Evolution vs. Intelligent Design), or will you join ranks with the “Agents of Intolerance” in the academic community?
Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Kudos. That’s a good one. I read Ecclesiastes when I was 18 years old. I’ve been depressed for 34 years now. They should put a content warning on that book.
My collie says:
More Calvinist gloom and doom, eh?
CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 10:20 PM
Oops, not so fast…
Every single one of the other movies listed on IMDB has a plot described, except…you guessed it. Why not put the plot in there? They pay people to do this, heck, I could write a summary of the plot.
This looks deliberate.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 10:26 PM
CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 10:05 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?”
It’s a rational response to our social environment.
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?
Just to give a counter-example, I think my local supermarket is pretty fair. I produce something, I get paid for it, and I exchange the money for nearly equal value in goods. I’d say that’s fair.
So if fairness is so rare, why does each one of us have the concept of “fairness” so deeply ingrained in our psyches?
I disagree that fairness is rare. If fairness really were rare society would collapse. Unfairness is far more rare.
My collie says:
Anyone got a good scripture reference for this one?
You’re collie is just clinging to religion out of economic frustration.
RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 10:26 PM
CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 10:05 PM,
Tell your collie that as a good Calvinist, I’m surprised he didn’t recall Romans 2:14-16: :-)
INC on April 20, 2008 at 10:26 PM
I’m not advocating that you do nothing. I’m just saying that sometimes you come across in a way that is perceived by the blind man as being angry, not loving. To him you are a clanging cymbal and he shuts out you and your message.
If, instead, he can tell that your heart is filled with love for him, he may actually listen to what you have to say instead of walking off the cliff with his hands over his ears…
Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 10:26 PM
damnit. your. i’m so ashamed.
RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 10:29 PM
I don’t know if if a valid theory or not – I just don’t know enough about the subject to be able to answer that.
However I will tell you that it is not the same as ID which invokes the supernatural in an attempt answer what is unknown in the natural world. That is not science. Science cannot move outside the bounds of naturalism to answer naturalistic questions. The second that it does, science ends. Saying that an ‘Intelligent Designer’ did it is no explanation for anything. Thus, I call it pseudo-science. Global warming may or may not be correct, but at least it does not call on a transcendent Designer (or Climate Changer?) to answer its questions.
HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Is evolution fact or theory?
Johan Klaus on April 20, 2008 at 10:34 PM
So when an evo scientist says that life could have begun on the backs of crystals or by aliens seeding the earth, is he using pseudo-science? Because that’s the best explanations given by evo scientists for how life began.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 10:36 PM
No kidding…”all is vanity and vexation of spirit”. I spent a good portion of my life chasing the wind as well…hard to get your arms around it.
labrat on April 20, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Is the big bang valid theory?
Johan Klaus on April 20, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Where does that proposition leave man’s reason?
Weight of Glory on April 20, 2008 at 10:39 PM
fossten:
You are right – it is not your job to do anything for me. But I have read enormous amounts of ID material (maybe not thousands of articles but nonetheless…), and I will tell you that I have never seen anything, not an article, not a book, not a video which can explain one of the basic princilples of a scientific theory:
All scientific theories must have predictive power. They must be used to gain new scientific information. How does ID fit this bill?
Fossten, I am not asking you to do research for me. But I do need questions like that answered to my satisfaction before I can accept ID as any kind of scientific theory. Until then, I consider it as scientifically usefull astrology. It explains nothing.
HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 10:40 PM
The guy had hundreds of wives, can ya blame him?
*rim-shot
Weight of Glory on April 20, 2008 at 10:41 PM
FAIR?? WHAT’S FAIR?
don’t know what’s fair, but i do know what isn’t fair.
not having a sharp toothed collie to go bite our new crank-the-stereo-to-10-and-bark-at-the-moon-every-damn-night neighbors in the a$$
that’s what’s NOT fair…
TheCulturalist on April 20, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Wow! you must live two doors down from me!
Weight of Glory on April 20, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Sounds like science fiction to me.
Johan Klaus on April 20, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Are you really interested in my opinion, or are you baiting me? I told you my opinion regarding global warming – same applies with these questions. Scientific fact does not exist formally outside of mathematics.
HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic).
This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. This fallacy often appears in the context of a straw man argument. [like your "predictive power" requirement]
This is another case in which the burden of proof determines whether it is actually a fallacy or not. If a proposing team fails to provide sufficient support for its case, the burden of proof dictates they should lose the debate, even if there exist other arguments (not presented by the proposing team) that could have supported the case successfully. Moreover, it is common practice in debate for judges to give no weight to a point supported by an argument that has been proven invalid by the other team, even if there might be a valid argument the team failed to make that would have supported the same point; this is because the implicit burden of proof rests with the team that brought up the argument.
***
You brought up the argument, so you have the burden of proof. Make your case.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 10:45 PM
we all live 2 doors down…
TheCulturalist on April 20, 2008 at 10:46 PM
umm… not sure I understand the question. Are you asking where reason came from if not from the supernatural?
HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Heh. nice
Weight of Glory on April 20, 2008 at 10:47 PM
ID asks how exactly evolution happened without an Intelligent Designer. And evolution insists on a purely naturalistic process; therefore, evolution depends on the absence of an Intelligent Designer.
Again, ID focuses on the shortcomings of evolution.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 10:47 PM
How ironic.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Fossten:
what the…?
It is not my requirement, that is a simple requirement of a good scientific theory. Scientific ideas, hypotheses and predictions are based on sound theories. I am simply asking if ID can fill that requirement.
HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 10:49 PM
You are not a Christian, because you don’t understand the basic principles…where did you learn such garbage? This is why arguing with an atheist is foolish, they don’t understand the very basic concepts of religion.
But the question is…can somebody explain how
Intelligent Designevolution is a legitimate scientific theory and not religion trying to sneak into the science classroom? This is how this thread began, and you or your ilk have not answered it.Most everyone agrees that ID’rs requires some faith, as does you who believe in evolution. The difference is, we understand faith, you confuse your faith with hard scientific evidence, and squelch any other. Evolution (and atheism’s) is a religion.
*
Now I answered your question, you answer mine…since you believe in evolution…which race of humans have evolved the most. It would be impossible for all races to evolve at the same rate, so which one is the most involved.
*
Let me give you a hint, since Darwin, the scientists have suddenly had a realization that maybe there are no races, because that would be a disaster, as you have found out trying to answer my question. So the scientists, suddenly decided that Humans are no longer made up of races, but they are different and will be called social categories. Even though the DNA of Jews is different from Asians, and different from Africans. Easily discerned, but they would have to admit that “social Darwinism” exists. They would have to admit that the races are either identical (which would mean mathematically points to ID) or that certain races would be more evolved (as did Darwin and his followers), casting dispersion onto the black race.
So we have science at the beckoning of social correctness. Oops, there goes the “science” part of evolution…
or do you want to venture which races have evolved the furthest?
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 10:50 PM
Who doesn’t love this thread!! What I love most about it is that the creationist/IDer’s aren’t arguing from ignorance. They are bringing up varied and solid points for their side.
It shows that the more we learn about the world we live in, the more foolish Darwin’s theory presents itself. As science delves deeper into space and into the cell itself, the more we understand that our God is an AWESOME GOD!
How about this? “In the beginning was information.”
Skidd on April 20, 2008 at 10:50 PM
This is a good read on the subject - short and to the point.
labrat on April 20, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Just trying to get your perspective. Scientific fact does exist if proven.
Johan Klaus on April 20, 2008 at 10:52 PM
The best part is I was there the first time 1,000 was broken, I am going to be there the first time 2,000 was broken.
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 10:52 PM
You said:
Yet, if you believe that reason stands outside of nature, then scientist utilize, in the very formulations of their theories, that which you have placed outside the realm of science, namely reason. If you believe that reason is not supernatural (philosophical naturalist) then that’s a different issue all together, and will yield the discussion to my friend ColtsFan, if he’s out there.
Weight of Glory on April 20, 2008 at 10:52 PM
theregoestheneighborhood:
I have never heard that – that is an interesting way of phrasing it. But dosen’t ID ultimately point to that Designer as the solution?
HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Ah, I see what you were asking – whether or not ID is testable. I’m afraid I got my terms switched around.
Nevertheless…
Your question about testability of ID has already been addressed and answered on this forum. If you have read many articles, surely a few pages on a forum won’t be too much for you.
By the way, macroevolution by the same definition is pseudoscience.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Not only true, but an understatement. Ecclesiastes is not really safe for teenagers.
I’d say we should label it, “For adults only,” but we know that would just make teenagers want to read it.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 10:54 PM
I’m sorry, this is way too much for me to spend my time reading every one, so if someone has answered you, please forgive me.
“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 ”
Ah – I have an answer for you rightofleft! My God does not!
Bambi on April 20, 2008 at 10:55 PM
just saw an ad on tv for the new “naked brothers band” album featuring their latest hit “i don’t want to go to school”…
the lyrics seem to consist of repeating the title over and over again.
do u suppose this is because they are afraid of what they will be taught there?
fyi, if either of my boys, ages 3 and 4, were to have heard that commercial, i would have told them exactly how bad i thought the message is. how many other bad messages are our children hearing on tv, from their friends and in their classrooms?
think about it…
TheCulturalist on April 20, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Got news for you, evolutionary scientists do the same thing when they speculate that aliens seeded the Earth.
By the way, if that’s true, where did the aliens come from?
Ultimately, evolution cannot answer the question “Where did life come from” and all attempts to test their theories have come up short.
Thus, as yet evolution with respect to neoDarwinism (including the Big Bang theory) is pseudoscience.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 10:56 PM
I thought it was fairly depressing too until very recently. Then I happened upon this translation that has footnotes that explains why its so depressing. After reading them, Ecclesiastes is not so depressing anymore, but rather just the truth.
I’m not all that fond of this translation…. but be sure to checkout the footnotes on this page !!
Maxx on April 20, 2008 at 10:57 PM
A+ for a great link…this is what people need to read. The proverbial chicken or the egg. As I had posted (but your is much much better) did Darwin create his theory’s to support his views, or did his theory’s create his views. But his views, as evidenced by his second book, was clearly to define the black race as inferior.
Your link added much more, and it completes the line of thought I had a difficult time completing.
Thanks,
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 10:57 PM
ECC 9-11 happens to be one of my favorite passages of the OT. Yes, read the footnotes. Some of the new bibles hav some incredible details (background) backing up the different verses.
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 10:59 PM
righttobright:
I honestly have no idea of evolution by natural selection is correct or not. I have no faith or non-faith in it. It is something I am still educating myself on, but it is complicated stuff so I am a little behind, but I am interested. Since when is evolution a religion? And since when am I an atheist?
HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 11:00 PM
By the way, folks…can you feel it? It’s coming over the horizon…2000 comments.
Weight of Glory on April 20, 2008 at 11:00 PM
It’s been fun people. Gotta’ go. My wife just got home from work. Her shift starts at 5 AM tommorrow — and I have to drop her off on the way to work. Keep the thread going. I wanna’ see AllahPundit have a hemorrage or somethin.’
My collie says:
I’m not fair to you either. What’s your point?
CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Take care.
Weight of Glory on April 20, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Yea….this is the number one complaint unbelievers use. The Christian God rubs ‘em the wrong way.
The problem with this complaint is that God isn’t on trial. You are.
The Christian God makes people uncomfortable so they make one up to suit themselves or deny His existence.
It took 40 years for me to understand that it doesn’t matter what I think about God, I’m not in charge.
Skidd on April 20, 2008 at 11:04 PM
do dogs dream?
TheCulturalist on April 20, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Have a good night. I’m off to bed as well. It’s clean sheet day…(woot)
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 11:04 PM
I was reading a little of Ecclesiastes last night because someone in the thread referenced it. Fascinating stuff… the truth of it just BOOMS out at you. I plan to read the rest of it soon and I look forward to it.
Maxx on April 20, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Great post.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Races are not considered distinct species. There’s debate over whether race exists at all. Anyway, the idea that one species can evolve “further” than another is a normative statement that can’t be answered with the scientific method.
RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 11:06 PM
An inkling of what the link had…
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Prove it.
RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 11:07 PM
OMG!! I remember Gene Scott yelling that exact same phrase on my TV. ‘God’s not on trial, you are!! Now get on the phone!!!!’
*sigh* nostalgia
HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 11:10 PM
I haven’t read this entire thread, but I have studied extensively on the matter. Here is a great book that one should read if one is curious about the Evolution vs. Creation debate (note, not Intelligent Design, but actual Creation).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/
and
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
It’s really good.
Theophile on April 20, 2008 at 11:13 PM
So did you get on the phone? (kidding) :)
Skidd on April 20, 2008 at 11:14 PM
I saw the movie yesterday myself, and I have to tell you, that there was a standing ovation at the end of it. I went to an early evening showing of it, and the crowd that was there was either a group of parents who knew each other, or a group of high school teachers. Either way, you could hear and feel the response to the pomposity of the answers of the Darwinians when questioned by Stein. It is probably one of the greatest documentaries I have ever seen. And it scared the ever-living daylights out of me, inasmuch as our higher education future goes.
MsUnderestimated on April 20, 2008 at 11:15 PM
My daughter and son attend a private school and the middle and high school classes are going to see this together. I’m really glad.
Rose on April 20, 2008 at 11:17 PM
You didn’t read my post…until Darwin’s theory begin to be fleshed out, did science suddenly have to say “their are no races”. They buckled under social pressures. We can now discern between the DNA of different races. The studies of American Indians and the Mormon’s claims that they decendend fromt he Jews has been disproved by DNA. The DNA of Jews is different. Asian DNA is different from Euoropeans. Only when the ramifications of what Darwin stated, did the scientists back away from “races”. The Mongloian race is different from the African race, in DNA, body structure, skin, hair, in all ways that would create a race.
Imagine if they would have stuck to their original theories (which once again DNA bears out) that their are different races…evolution would be extinct…or drummed out for being racist, even if correct.
*
You have to say there are no races you have no choice, or your theory would fall apart…but there are races. More different then a collie and a doberman, or a blue jay and a hawk, understand? a bigger difference.
But now scientists are stuck…society has demanded them to give up that part of research…some science.
And you rightofleft, are stuck with 1/2 of a theory…like I said, I love to watch evolutionists dance…
So, is Mongolians more evolved then the African race???
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 11:19 PM
jp, just listened to it. I think RCSproul said some things that were correct, most importantly that this not a scientific issue, rather a philosphic one. I also agree with him that scientists do not want ID tought in science classroom because it breaks their philosophic bent toward naturalism.
This is not about science, rather it is about how science *is done*. If ID is ‘expelled’ from scientific discourse, it is because it breaks the rules of naturalism, which is at the foundation of our scienfic method. And this is where I think scientists differ with Sproul and Stein. We cannot stop whenever we are stumped with a scientific problem, throw up our hands and say ‘that does it, a transcendent designer must be responsible’. That can be taught in philosophy, in theology, in religious classes – and that is worth considering. But it has no room in science class. ID, in my view is a dead end. Once a designer has been invoked the road is closed for further scientific investigation. It explains nothing from a scientific standpoint.
Whether ID or Evolution is true, frankly, I have no blasted idea. But each has their own domains – and religion, which is ultimately what ID is, has no place in science. It is worthy of debate, but not in science class.
Stein said nothing that I agreed with.
Thanks for the video.
HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 11:20 PM
I hope you don’t mind that I take a shot at this Skidd.
But RightOFLEFT, while I can’t prove that we are the ones on trial, here’s some food for thought.
I’m sure you’ve heard the expression that “life’s a stage” or life’s a this or Life’s a that.
You know what life really is? It’s a classroom and we are put here to learn a few things and chief among them is that God is God.
You can’t run from Him, you can’t Hide from Him and no matter what, you will be judged. So in this classroom…. learn to love Him, because He is worthy of you love.
He said He knew each of us before we were born.
Maxx on April 20, 2008 at 11:21 PM
I’m glad you took it. I thought of a million ways to answer the question, but none succinct enough for this forum. Great job. Thanks.
Skidd on April 20, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Bookmarked it. I might read it someday, but from the looks of it, it looks heavily inflenced by Whitcomb and Morris’ The Genesis Flood (the Creationist book that started it all).
HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 11:28 PM
30+ more comments…keep them coming…
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 11:30 PM
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 11:19 PM
You didn’t read any of my post, apparently. Science can’t address normative questions. Got it?
RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 11:34 PM
And evolution belongs in the science class?
Johan Klaus on April 20, 2008 at 11:37 PM
i sense a slacking off here…
come on you Atheists, have a little FAITH in your convictions, keep posting
and you Creationists, have a little… ummmm
help a brother out here,,, what would be the opposite of faith to use here?
TheCulturalist on April 20, 2008 at 11:39 PM
I’ll try righttobright.
Since you have me tagged as an evolutionist who prays at the alter of atheism, (which I am not), you asked me this question:
What do you mean by a race having “evolved the most”? What do you mean when you say one race (or one species for that matter) is more evolved than the other? The way I understand the theory, natural selection is the mechanism by which species evolve to adapt to their environment. So to be ‘more evolved’ does not mean one is better, smarter or faster than the other. I am not sure there is such a thing as one species being more evolved than the other. Just better suited to their environments. A whale is better adapted to handle the ocean environment than I am, so I think the whale would be more evolved than me in that environment. Using that model of evolution then, and this is just a guess, Swedes would be better adapted to living in a yurt or icehouse whereas a Malasian would probably freeze to death in those conditions, because of their particular adaptations.
Outside of that, I am unsure what you are asking.
HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 11:40 PM
And evolution belongs in the science class?
Johan Klaus on April 20, 2008 at 11:37 PM
Does evolution invoke the supernatural?
HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Scientist once believed that the duckbilled Platypus did not exist.
Johan Klaus on April 20, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Depends. Do aliens count?
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Looks like I am the only anti-IDer left standing here. I am not much of an atheist, but I did place superfluous comments about Gene Scott, Whitcomb and Morris, and now this. Whadya want out of me??!!??
HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 11:44 PM
There’s another side to this. Atheists are banking EVERYTHING that there isn’t a God. What if they’re wrong?
Deists are banking EVERYTHING that God has nothing to do with what takes place down here. What if they’re wrong?
To say it’s science and ONLY science with nothing but materialism–well, that’s a philosophical argument.
Skidd on April 20, 2008 at 11:44 PM
It’s always fun when illiterate people insult your intelligence.
Jaibones on April 20, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Actually no. Carl Sagan used to philosophize eloquently about extra-terrestrials. But I will concede that alien technology is nothing more than whimsey and not scientifically valid.
By the way, I am no fan of Dawkins, for what it is worth.
HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 11:45 PM
ID does not have to invoke the supernatural. It is a way of saying that random actions did not create complex organisms.
Johan Klaus on April 20, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Here I will try this, maybe you will understand…
I am not asking for better or worse, I am asking which one is more evolved.
If science can’t determine degree of evolution, then it can’t measure evolution. If it can’t be measured, it isn’t even a theory.
Get it?
You are saying evolution can’t be measured, so what basis do you have for evolution existing, since it can’t be measured?
Now if it can be measured, which race of humans is more evolved.
Get it?
Science has backed themselves into a corner…the only way out was to arbitrarily say, there are now no human races…even with distinct DNA differences.
Hence the “socialization” of science…therefore, not a science but a sociology study, or religion…back to evolution is a religion and not a science.
Get it?
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Amen to that. I’d add, “or why he’s asking it.”
RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 11:46 PM
pushing the post count over 2k
TheCulturalist on April 20, 2008 at 11:47 PM
scientist does not equal atheist. I know quite a few Christians (Catholic) who are as devout as can be and want God left out of science class. It just does not fit when trying to decipher the natural world, much as it is said that natural reasoning does not fit in Christian theology.
Besides, I thought ID was not about religion? Yet I see it crop up again and again here.
HeIsSailing on April 20, 2008 at 11:50 PM
I wonder…. is this thread the record? Has any other HotAir thread gone this high? I saw one break a thousand once, but I’ve never seen it go this high.
Maxx on April 20, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Yes, it makes outlandish statements that can’t be backed up by facts…it takes faith to believe in evolution, which throws it into a religious concept.
Evolution says, something came from nothing…it says one species developed into another with no evidence…and it has erased all human races on earth and created just one, despite the DNA evidence to the contrary.
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 11:51 PM
If evolution is indeed correct, then it has reached it’s highest with the evolution of Michelle Malkin.
Johan Klaus on April 20, 2008 at 11:53 PM
This is the big one, I was there on 1,000 (last year) and I am staying for 2,000.
BTW, 1,000 was a religious one also, just like this…Judeo/Christian and theists, two religions battling it out…
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 11:53 PM
I didn’t say it was. I mentioned deists also.
I’m not a IDer. I’m a creationist. :)
Skidd on April 20, 2008 at 11:53 PM
my spider senses are tingling…
TheCulturalist on April 20, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Because evolution is a religion requiring a high degree of faith…and theists is a religion requiring a high degree of faith.
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 11:55 PM
Allah just gave you a gold star beside your name.
Maxx on April 20, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Bravo to Ben Stein for making this movie. Rush brings up science a lot on his show too. They’re both fighting a good fight here.
Mojave Mark on April 20, 2008 at 11:57 PM
What do you even mean by degree of evolution?
RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 11:58 PM
Wish this thread would evolve.
PrettyD_Vicious on April 20, 2008 at 11:59 PM
I think it has devolved since the first 1000 posts.
PrettyD_Vicious on April 21, 2008 at 12:00 AM
Come on, if we each post just once it can be all over…maybe this will help.
I read an article that atheists are the number one suspect to be pedophiles?
Christians are the most corrupt people on earth.
Mormon’s are not Christians.
Joooos control all of the money.
Evolution has never evolved…
right2bright on April 21, 2008 at 12:00 AM
Does this thread have the most comments ever?
Skidd on April 21, 2008 at 12:01 AM
and can anybody here tell me if they have read every post?
PrettyD_Vicious on April 21, 2008 at 12:02 AM
I think you are correct, Skidd.
The past Amnesty thread produced 1320 comments, I think.
We are now close to 2000….
ColtsFan on April 21, 2008 at 12:03 AM
Here is another contribution from me.
ColtsFan on April 21, 2008 at 12:03 AM
or is reading Saint Olaf’s posts redundant?
PrettyD_Vicious on April 21, 2008 at 12:03 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 ... 24 Next »