Movie Review: Expelled
posted at 3:00 pm on April 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
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 ... 21 22 23 24 Next »
And if you put monkeys in a room full of typewriters, you’ll eventually get one of them to type out Shakespeare plays.
RoPa4life on April 21, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Steve, that was beautiful. I would love to sit in a room and watch you and my husband debate two darwinists.
…with some tequila.
My idea of a really good time.
shibumiglass on April 21, 2008 at 5:53 PM
But intelligent design does not answer the question of the origin of life because the designer is alive herself right?
Ars Moriendi on April 21, 2008 at 5:55 PM
From a Biblical perspective, not that I can see.
Now, is the Biblical perspective the truth?
The Bible records 78 times when Jesus said “I tell you the truth“.
Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Ok, set up an experiment and let me know they’re done.
This is why evolution requires belief in billions of years. Any science that points to the earth being approximately 6000 years old is not tolerated in the academic community.
RoPa4life, what would be different in your life if the earth were only 6000 years old and not billions of years old?
Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 6:05 PM
It would probably still be too hot to live on.
Ars Moriendi on April 21, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Sir, YOU are the one who is incorrect. And since you haven’t even bothered to read the link I posted, you are intellectually lazy as well. You don’t even know who to address. For your information, dedalus was answering my request to post contradictions. R2B never asked him that.
You might want to check your facts before you post so haphazardly.
fossten
Then I suggest you go forth and publish the correct Bible that somehow clears up all the errors and contradictions. Apparently these errors came forth because of a crappy translation. These errors have been known about for 100+ years but no one has had the time to correct them.
So, the Bible is in error and contracts itself. The why of it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that far too many people feel the need to fit their “science” into a book that YOU HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED HAS ERRORS. Do you not see the problem?
You may be a brilliant linguist with knowledge of dead languages, I don’t know. What I do know is that you have no idea about the scientific method.
Krydor on April 21, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Wow, this post’s comments just keep going and going like the Energizer bunny! Have to jump in…
I’m an evangelical who accepts the multiple lines of evidence supporting a 15 billion year old universe, a 4.5 billion year old earth and the well attested theory of evolution.
That said, I’ve studied this in some detail and the commenters above are correct that abiogenesis is beyond unlikely. The minimum complexity for a living cell in the lab is somewhere around 386 genes (M. genitalium). Keep in mind, this is a cell which can not survive without other cells to live off of (it’s a parasite) much less in a hostile, early earth environment.
Because DNA is essentially information, you can translate that amount of DNA into more familiar terms. 386 genes works out to be something like 500K of data. And the catch is, because this is a minimum system there is no redundancy. One bit out of place therefore likely equals dire consequences for the organism.
It’s very difficult to imagine how you get to half a meg of data without any evolutionary process to get you there (no life, no evolution). Obviously it’s not impossible, but it does seem to be exceedingly unlikely. Enough to at least make you stop and think.
John on April 21, 2008 at 6:27 PM
At what amount of zeros do you to call it otherwise?
rhodeymark on April 21, 2008 at 6:46 PM
There are no errors. I’ve never seen any. And all the so-called “contradictions” posed here have been answered. Feel free to share the errors with me so that I can clear them up for you. Your argument by assertion is futile.
I have not admitted any such thing. You are in error. How ironic.
How is the Bible’s inerrancy related to my knowledge of the scientific method? You can’t even stay on the same subject in your own post!
You don’t happen to know the first thing about me or my knowledge, yet you make these baseless, empty claims. You haven’t gotten to first base on this entire thread with any of your “arguments,” yet on your website you call ID proponents “Luddite Fundies.” Apparently you’re nothing but a sad caricature of a mindless demagogue.
And you have no knowledge of the Bible. All you can post about is whatever you’ve either been told or googled. You certainly haven’t read it in its entirety. But then again, having read some of the articles on your website, I can see how the Bible would be rather challenging for someone like you.
Speaking of your website, hadn’t you best be getting on home, to dkos or huff n puff?
fossten on April 21, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Darwin made a scientific case for natural selection producing changes in organisms over generations, as opposed to the Lamarkian view that had been popular beforehand. Darwin did so without knowledge of genetics, which would first be outlined by Gregor Mendel but not researched until the 20th century.
Whether Darwin was a racist or not doesn’t impact his contribution to the development of biological science. Had he followed the Lamarkian views on evolution, his name would be largely forgotten.
Some men who aspire to rule will use whatever philosophies lie around them to dress up their lust for power, and some used Darwin’s work. We can see how even great ideas, like the ones that this country were founded on, were misused by some in the French Revolution with bloody results.
dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 8:03 PM
Since the origin of the universe is beyond comprehention, the same can be said of the Creator.
Johan Klaus on April 21, 2008 at 8:09 PM
And you know this how?
Johan Klaus on April 21, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Johan Klaus on April 21, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Let’s make that, beyond human comprehention.
Johan Klaus on April 21, 2008 at 8:16 PM
fossten’s comment raised my curiosity about Krydor’s web site. Krydor’s most current post is about this HotAir thread and says:
So, just for grins I followed his link to Expelled Exposed. The leadoff paragraph there says:
ROTFL…”creating the appearance of controversy where there is none“…Yeah, there is no controversy…that is why so many different people have contributed to making this the most commented thread in HotAir history. I suspect the debate will still be healthy in this thread even after it disappears from the main page…people will go to the archives specifically to find the thread and add their comments…
Or, we could do as you seem to suggest and submit to the “consensus” of Evolution just as we are expected to submit to the “consensus” of Gore-bull Warming.
Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 8:22 PM
LOL…didn’t you get the memo? The debate is over, dude.
fossten on April 21, 2008 at 8:41 PM
Fossten, MB4, ronsfi.
I’ll be praying for you..
God loves you even though you denounce his existence..
no i’m not bitter but I do like my guns and believe in my God with all my heart..
it’s an all or nothing for me..
DaveC on April 21, 2008 at 9:19 PM
That doesn’t really answer the question. The argument of intelligent design is that complex systems require an intelligent designer. The designer itself must also be complex, so wouldn’t the designer also require a designer? If not, then why do less complex systems require one?
Ars Moriendi on April 21, 2008 at 9:22 PM
To the skeptical question: Look, there are examples for creation everywhere (ie, Irreducible Complexity: meaning that something requires all its parts in order to function, so therefore it couldn’t have possibly evolved. A good example is the ear and eye. Or the Flagellum bacteria.) Evidence for a global flood. This not only explains how the dinosaurs died, but how so many fossils were preserved (A gigantic flood with tons of dirt and water covering you instantly would result in a fossil). Repeated Biblical prophecies that have come true with 100% accuracy every single time, etcetera, etcetera. If the Bible is true in everything it has said so far (for the sake of brevity, I’ve left out so so much). If it is true in all it’s claims, every single time. I have no reason to doubt the Bible when it tells me there is but one God, and to “the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever” 1 Timothy 1:17.
God tells us, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last (Revelation 22:13).” He is the beginning and He is the end. Psalm 90:2 says, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” He has existed for eternity. He alone is the the Eternal, Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipetent, Creator. He is the Creator of time as well as space and all things that exist in time and space. The God of the Bible claims to be Eternal, without beginning or end. You asked where did God come from? Who created God? To be able to create something, you must exist outside of time. So it is an error placing God within time, because God exists outside of time. Time is a creation of God’s, and He is not restricted by it. Infact, you could say God exists without time, to be more accurate. He is not governed by the laws that exist on Earth. It is not the year 2008 in heaven right now.. lol.. This is beyond our mental comprehension, but there is no other rational explanation for our existence, and it is surely compatible with our instincts for a Creator (God satisfies the heart) and the evidences we see for a Design in our world today. The Bible tells me “God that made the world and all things therein” (Acts 17:24). I see proof of this everywhere I look. You don’t have to convince me anymore. I’m a believer. Thus, I have no problem when the Lord commands, “Thou shalt have no others gods before me.” Exodus 20:3
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 9:22 PM
For the sake of argument, I can accept that maybe God exist outside of time and possibly in dimensions that we can’t comprehend. I am not asking what came before God. I am asking why it would be that God, who is presumably more complex than an eye or an ear does not require a designer when an eye or and ear does.
Ars Moriendi on April 21, 2008 at 9:35 PM
one other quick note.. in the book of Revelations, John talks about an actual nation of Israel.. 60 years ago, a nation of Israel in the middle east was non-existent, now.. Hamas only wishes is was so…
DaveC on April 21, 2008 at 9:37 PM
What do you think “flying squirrels” and “flying fish” are going to evolve into?
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 9:44 PM
This was a great thread, I learned a lot. Thanks everyone for your views, even if I disagreed with them.
Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Absolutely correct. They are completely incompatible with each other. Evolution is a religion of death. Death is the hero of the plot. A god that has to use suffering, misfits, death, a god that doesn’t know what he wants the first time and can’t make it right in six days like He said, that is a retarded god. I would not worship that god. It is certainly not the God of the Holy Bible.
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 10:12 PM
The individual proteins of the bacterial flagellum can be combined for other functional purposes. When parts of the molecular motor are combined to form a molecular syringe, they show evolutionary value.
dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 10:13 PM
A death and resurrection are at the center of Christianity. Many are able to look at theories like common descent and still have faith in Christ and a life after death.
Also, doesn’t the God of the OT inflict a lot of suffering for a variety of reasons?
dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 10:23 PM
You don’t understand the history of the Bible. For one thing human history would be completely lost if it were not for the Holy Bible. The Bible is the only written account in the world that conveys a history of mankind and his existence on this planet. It is a well established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch, Syria, and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt. The Syrian text from Antioch is where our King James 1611 comes, and the Egyptian text is where all the modern perversions come, including the Catholic Bible (Rome got her manuscripts from Alexandria). Now I don’t care what Bible version you use. I’m not going to fight Christians who use other versions. Use whatever you want. I’m not saying you can’t benefit from them. But, the King James 1611 is Safe!.. There are no errors in this version of the Bible.
God promised to “preserve” His word for us. God is not a liar.
Psalms 12:6-7 it says, “The words of the LORD are PURE words… Thou shalt KEEP them, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation for ever.”
And in Matthew 24:35, the Lord Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”
I’ll let the video take over from here.
King James Bible Page
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 10:40 PM
In another 10,000 years, or more? Who knows… the only reason I brought them up was to provide a living example of things that found a use for incomplete wings. Is it really so hard to imagine a tree-climing reptile gliding from tree to tree the way some species of squirrel do?
Watcher on April 21, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Aren’t we living in a physical world? That’s why we have laws and time that govern this universe. God lives in a spritual world. He is not restricted by any of these confines to create this physical universe. Yes, the Big Bang is a fact; from nothing to everything, is creation in the truest definition.
cjs1943 on April 21, 2008 at 10:50 PM
Where in the Bible does it say God took billions and billions of years to make everything?
“For in six days the Lord made heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.” Exodus 20:11
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 10:53 PM
If you believe the earth formed 4.6 billions years ago, to simplify in a nutshell, you believe everything alive today came from a rock. Is that correct?
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 10:55 PM
I myself believe that the scientists should keep on looking to try to figure out how all of this came into being. Let them look and modify their findings. But, also, when they do get stuck, can’t they ask themselves; maybe there is a God? Why not keep an open mind that they claim that they have. Then keep on looking, knowing that maybe there is a God is an option.
I saw the movie this afternoon and the scientists interviewed in the movie that were pro-evolution sounded like a lot of the posters on this thread. They just hate and seethe with hatred anything that is religion or acknowleges God.
For, supposedly, intelligent people, why shut down an avenue of discovery and/or the people who are exploring that avenue?
cjs1943 on April 21, 2008 at 11:00 PM
That’s a good observation.
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 11:02 PM
I believe evolution is a bogus religion. This is something you have to believe in. There isn’t any proof evolution works, has existed, or exists now. If evolution had happened, when did it stop and why did it stop. If it is still going on, why do we have the Endangered Species Act? What do we care if some animal, fish, or plant becomes extinct? Isn’t that the process of survival of the fittest working? Again, so what. With evolution going on, isn’t something evolving right now that will be better and stronger than what went extinct? Then also, if evolution is going on (hasn’t stopped), shouldn’t we be able to observe it? Something slowly but surely changing over into something else that never existed before? Then how did cells decide to come together and make an organ, then the organs decide to get together and make an organism – something new and unique. How did a cell ‘evolve’ into becoming a bone cell? Another into a muscle cell? Another into a cartilage cell? Another into a leaf cell?
Even Charles Darwin himself admitted that if an example of irreducible complexity were ever found, his theory of natural selection would crumble. Irreducible complexity asserts that certain biochemical systems in nature contain parts that are too well matched to be products of evolution.
I cut and pasted this last paragraph from LiveScience.com. Here is the link for that:
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050923_ID_science.html Then for more reading on this, here is another link: http://www.livescience.com/othernews/051109_evolution_science.html
These links are where LiveScience is trying to debunk the arguments that evolution doesn’t exist. But, in my estimation, they are too caught up with themselves to see the folly of their own arguments.
I read LiveScience.com once in awhile for the outrageous things they say and believe. I will say that sometimes some of it makes sense and you can learn something from it.
cjs1943 on April 21, 2008 at 11:14 PM
OK, I got my 2 cents in there, so now I am outta here.
cjs1943 on April 21, 2008 at 11:16 PM
You missed my whole point which was many people have tried to disprove the Bible, but over and over the Bible stands true. Archeology, biology and medicine all point to the fact the Bible is accurate. Isaac Newton, called “the greatest scientist ever,” declared, “We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.” Study it, and see for yourself. So if the Bible is always right,, then I believe it when God says “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last (Revelation 22:13).” I think you should look this verse up to see exactly what this means. The requirements for being a Christian is that he/she believes and accepts the whole teaching of the Bible. A Christian cannot just ignore part of the Scripture and still claim to be a Christian.
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 11:25 PM
This is ridiculous. You will say anything to avoid the God who made you.
Is it possible that many believe in Evolution and no God, not because of the evidence, but rather because they want to continue in things you know He wouldn’t approve of? I think so. Most people reject God because of their lifestyle. Not because they don’t believe He exists. What sin are you holding on to dedalus?
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 11:30 PM
DaveC,
fossten said that tongue-in-cheek. Go back to page 1 of the comments and read the second comment. fossten has been posting great stuff all along…
Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Christ gives eternal life for all who accept Him as Lord and Savior, by that a sinless person died on your behalf, so YOU could go to heaven..
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Romans 10:13
In evilution death is the hero of the plot because if evilution is true one animal evolves a little better than the rest for some reason — so what must happen to the rest of them? They have to die otherwise there is no progress. Mutation or something is a religion of death.
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 11:39 PM
This thread is now off the main page (actually, it’s been off for a while, I just don’t know exactly how long). Any further comments are the result of people very intentionally coming back here via either a bookmark or by going to the Hot Air vault to find it. Let’s see how long the dialog continues….
Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Can’t you take a guess? If you had to guess what do you think “flying squirrels” and “flying fish” are going to evolve into? According to evolution this typa thing has happened trillions upon trillions of times. Just take a shot at it.
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Is there “intelligence” in the “design” of the world around you, or not? If so, what is it’s origin? Again, creationist of evolutionist, we all have to agree on one thing. In the beginning there were three things, matter, energy, and “information” or “intelligence” or whatever you want to call it. The origin of the latter is the question at hand.
labrat on April 21, 2008 at 11:47 PM
It’s not so much that they don’t believe in God, it’s that they hate Him. If God’s Word is true, and He created the world, then that means He makes the rules. This seems to be a big factor in many people believing in the religion of evolutionism.
apacalyps on April 21, 2008 at 11:49 PM
No. Change is the hero of the story, not death. As for the rest of your comment, I am starting to wonder if you are for real or just a Moby sent here to make evangelicals look bad.
Watcher on April 21, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Rather than being ridiculous, the syringe is the means by which some bacteria infect their hosts. In response to this someone might take antibiotics.
I believe in a God who made us, and I hope cares for us individually. Don’t know that my lifestyle influences my view on science, but if you must know it’s a fairly ordinary lifestyle–driving my kids to school, buying groceries and paying taxes. That and posting in some long threads on Hot Air.
dedalus on April 21, 2008 at 11:51 PM
A self-admitted “Agent of Intolerance”.
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 12:00 AM
Animals die. Often they die and feed other animals, sometimes they feed us. Christianity doesn’t have a problem with that since it is only man, not the animal, who is made in the image and likeness of the creator. Perhaps everything in the Earth’s evolution was leading up to the creation of man and the moment when God breathed a soul into his body. From that point on man is able to live morally and not as some beast.
dedalus on April 22, 2008 at 12:02 AM
Typical behavior for an “Agent of Intolerance”.
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 12:02 AM
No. What must happen to life in order for it to evolve? Evolution has to use suffering, misfits, death, because it doesn’t know what it wants the first time and can’t make it right the first time.
apacalyps on April 22, 2008 at 12:07 AM
That is why the “Agents of Intolerance” fight so hard to destroy anyone who dares to discuss ID.
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 12:07 AM
The fact that you’re trying to explain away examples of Irreducible Complexity is telling. The bacterial flagellum is the tail that propels E. coli bacteria. It has about 40 individual parts including a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It’s a microscopic outboard motor! And even though these outboard motors run at an incredible 100,000 rpm, they can stop on a dime. It takes only a quarter turn for them to stop, and start spinning 100,000 rpm in the opposite direction! It has two gears (forward and reverse), is water-cooled, etcetera, etcetera
If it misses just one of it’s parts, it’s useless.
This bacteria is proof of a Creator, yet, you are trying to explain it away with nonsense. How come?
apacalyps on April 22, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Where is any of this supported in Scripture? Evolutionists always use words like “perhaps” or “it might have” or “could have”. See, now this is your belief. This is not science. Where does God say He used evolution to created the world?
apacalyps on April 22, 2008 at 12:22 AM
“Until we meet again, may God bless you …adios.”
apacalyps on April 22, 2008 at 12:27 AM
The whole premise of the movie is that Intelligent Design does not get a fair hearing from scientists. So I have taken an objective look at ID on its own merit and I believe there is a fundamental flaw with it. ID states that complex systems require and intelligent designer yet the most complex system of all does not require a designer. Your response to this objection is that the Bible says so. That is not science, that is religion. If ID proponents want ID to be taken seriously as science then you cannot site religious scripture when the theory is challenged. By doing so you just reinforce the perception that ID is nothing more than a religious belief disguised as a scientific theory. Also you cannot establish ID as a valid scientific theory by attacking other theories. Each theory must stand (or fall) on its own merit. In addition your ad hom attacks and conspiracy theories do nothing to advance the cause of recognizing ID as legitimate theory, they only make you look like a troofer. As a conservative I am sympathetic to Christians but after reading this thread I have to agree with the scientific community that there is nothing in ID to support its inclusion into scientific curriculum.
Ars Moriendi on April 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM
The number of proteins in a bacterium doesn’t prove anything to me about the nature of the creator. I do believe in a creator’s presence through other ways though.
With regard to the bacterium, if one protein is missing the motor may be useless, but take away a few of the proteins and what was a motor functions as something else that is useful for injecting other cells. This isn’t an argument against the existence of God but maybe an indication of how some things might function according to natural laws rather than God hand-crafting molecules.
dedalus on April 22, 2008 at 12:37 AM
Okay, I’m back for one sec to answer this. I didn’t want to but… anyways, dedalus, if you believe God used evolution that is indeed an argument against the God. Why? Because whether you agree or not, you are essentially calling Him a liar. The Bible makes it very clear God created the world in 6 literal, 24-hour days, and rested on the 7th:
“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.” Exodus 20:11
God took six days, instead of a single instant, to finish His work of creating and making all things to be a model for humanity (Genesis 2:1-3).
“I (God) have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.” Isaiah 45:12
To argue against this, or to twist Scripture, is to say He is a liar, which is blaspheming Him. Anyways, gotta run. I hope you seriously reconsider your position dedalus. The Bible’s simplest interpretation is for a young earth creation account. A Christian cannot just ignore part of the Scripture and still claim to be a Christian.
apacalyps on April 22, 2008 at 12:58 AM
Note that ronsfi:
1) Doesn’t deny Charles Darwin was a racist.
2) Changes the subject and says Abraham Lincoln was a racist (without providing a shred of evidence as to why he thinks a man who believed “All men are Created equal” and who freed the slaves is, in ronsfi’s opinion, a racist).
Weak.
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 1:01 AM
Thank you for taking the time to post again. I’ll think about your comments. Have a good night.
dedalus on April 22, 2008 at 1:03 AM
I say that the number of comments (and the number of unique commenters) on this thread proves that it is a “hot button” issue.
And there have already been other posts about how people have been “sneaking in” to see Expelled without giving their money to Expelled, so forget your Michael Moore comparison. When this comes out on DVD, let’s compare DVD sales of Expelled to the DVD sales of any Michael Moore movie.
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 1:37 AM
Wow. Simply…Wow.
You are right, and that observation is chilling…
Christian medical centers seek to preserve life.
Atheist medical centers seek to end it.
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 1:45 AM
If you believe that god has the power to do anything, including create the entire universe out of nothing, then why is it so hard for you to accept that he may also be capable of speaking to man metaphorically? Why would that be the one thing that a supreme being cannot do?
Watcher on April 22, 2008 at 2:12 AM
Wow. I had never seen that before!
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 2:26 AM
I also draw your attention to this post:
It would appear that the Darwinists are doing everything possible to make the opening of this movie seem weaker than a Michael Moore opening.
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 2:57 AM
OMG TEH SATANIC FREEMASON CONSPIRACY!!!111!!!!11!eleven!11!
Will you guys give it a rest already?
Watcher on April 22, 2008 at 3:08 AM
I disagree. Let’s keep it all in one thread. It’s easier to see the overwhelming evidence of the controversy that “Expelled Exposed” insists doesn’t exist!
(Kind of like how despite overwhelming evidence they insist God doesn’t exist)
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 3:37 AM
This is not “scientific”, but is an “observation” I’d like to share. I’ve tried to keep a running log of unique user names who have commented on this thread, and I’ve tried to put them in one of three categories. I may have missed a few, but here it goes…
Anti-ID Evolutionists (46):
Biblical Creationists (97):
Middle Ground (not Biblical Creationists, but in favor of open debate of ID vs. Evolution (35):
So, it appears to me that Biblical Creationists outnumber Anti-ID Evolutionists more than 2 to 1, and if you add the middle ground folks, the Pro-ID crowd outnumbers the Anti-ID crowd nearly 3 to 1.
Tell that to the folks at “Expelled Exposed” who claim:
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 4:31 AM
This thread is now off the main page but this question has been answered (link is a portion of Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica). Hope Ars Moriendi sees it.
inviolet on April 22, 2008 at 4:36 AM
Not only that, a combined 178 unique user names have contributed 2265 comments to this thread.
So this supposedly non-controversial topic has created far and away the most controversy of any thread in the history of Hot Air.
I say Ben Stein is right. And the “Evolution Exposed” folks are the ones with the “anti-science propaganda”.
I say that the fascist imposition of Darwinian Evolution in our schools is part of the Communist’s game plan to “Defeat the Ultra-Right” and turn the USA into a Socialist/Communist country.
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 4:41 AM
That’s probably an offensive thing to say to many Catholics, but it puts me in mind of the story of William Tyndale disputing with a learned Catholic theologian whose actual Biblical knowledge was less than impressive.
William Tyndale said,
Tyndale of course was a pioneer in translating the scriptures into English, and was referring to the fact that biblical studies would no longer be confined to those who could afford to spend a lifetime first learning Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.
Tyndale and others helped bring learning to the common people. How different this discussion would be if scripture and its implications were only for the elite!
Note that for his troubles, he was constantly persecuted. In fact, his English translation had to be finished outside of England. He was finally put to death — strangled and burned at the stake — and his famous last words were “Open the King of England’s eyes.”
At first glance, this is way off topic, but I see a certain similarity for ID with the way Tyndale was hounded for what he was teaching. Fortunately, we live in an age when you won’t be strangled and burned at the stake for doubting evolutionary orthodoxy — though you might get that impression from reading some comments ;->. But I would think being fired or your career hitting a dead end is not particularly pleasant, either.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 22, 2008 at 5:15 AM
I couldn’t agree more. This is all that really needs to be said. Thanks for your earlier statistical observation. Very interesting.
labrat on April 22, 2008 at 5:59 AM
Sir, that is a right scholarly and doubtless mind-numbing bit of work. I applaud you.
fossten on April 22, 2008 at 6:47 AM
You haven’t seen the movie, obviously.
By your own definition, evolution is not science. It is pseudoscience at best, because when the rubber meets the road, evolution cannot answer the basic question, “How did life begin?” And for an evolutionist to say that aliens did it or that it started on the backs of crystals is to embrace a religion.
Furthermore, evolution cannot be shown to be true by any fossil evidence. Dating methods are not reliable, and the stark lack of intermediates is telling.
And by your own admission, scientists should be prevented from asking questions about evolution.
So should I chalk you up on the side of censorship then?
fossten on April 22, 2008 at 7:43 AM
Thank you both so much. That means a lot to me. I only got about 1.5 hours of sleep before I had to get back up this morning, but I knew those posts needed to be made. Your kind words give me more of a boost than two cups of coffee. :-)
I salute all of the Biblical Creationists who took a stand for truth in this thread. Truth always wins when good men and women take a stand for truth.
fossten, you were first out of the gate, and you have been tireless yourself.
I also salute all of those who are something other than Biblical Creationists and who took a stand in this thread for free speech and honest science. Our academic institutions must be a place where debate is encouraged and the truth is pursued. No more lies that must be accepted as “scientific consensus”.
God Bless America, land that I love!
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 9:29 AM
So, what stand will John McCain take when asked about this issue?
My guess is that he is an Anti-ID “Agent of Intolerance”.
Captain Ed, please ask him when you get the opportunity.
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 9:37 AM
o7 (salute)
fossten on April 22, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Oh, and Captain Ed, I truly believe it was part of God’s plan for you to come to Hot Air. If it were not for your arrival at Hot Air (and the short open registration window it provided) I would not have been able to regain my voice on HotAir (which was previously silenced by AP). I believe you have come “for such a time as this”.
Let us all remember Esther:
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 9:50 AM
OneGyT, we’ve missed your voice so far on this thread. Is there anything you’d like to add? A penny for your thoughts.
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 9:52 AM
I have been specifically focusing on ID and have not advanced any other theory for the origin of life. Each theory must stand on its own merit, I was challenging the central principle of ID that is irreducible complexity. If an eye is so complex that an intelligent designer is required to explain its existance then it follows that the creator of that eye must also be so complex as to require a designer. When I raise this objection I get two answers.
1. God just is and cannot be questioned because we are incapable of understanding. If this is true then ID is not science because science deals with concepts that we can question and understand. We may not always understand(or we may misunderstand), but the idea in science is that ultimately the things we study can be understood. If we define a concept as unknowable then it rest outside of the scope of science
2. God is simple. This cannot be. God is usually described as all-knowing and all-powerful. If God is all all-knowing then just to store all of that data about the universe, God would have to be at least as complex as the universe itself.
You seem to be more interested in evolution than you are in ID, can you blame scientists for feeling the same way? Again, each theory must stand on its own merit. Even if evolution is completely wrong that in itself would do nothing to advance ID as a theory.
Why? I have done what ID proponents insist that they desire, I have considered ID as an independent theory without comparing it to any other theory or silencing it in favor of another theory. I have focused on the principle of irreducible complexity which I consider the strongest argument for intelligent design. I guess if you think that considering your theory on its own grounds and asking questions about it, is censorship, then yea go ahead chalk me up on the side of censorship.
Ars Moriendi on April 22, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Despite the suppression described in Expelled, many more scientists & professors are moving from Darwin than to him.
jgapinoy on April 22, 2008 at 10:13 AM
And those who have gained power and control by imposing the lie are now starting to lose power and control as the lie is exposed. Those in power are running scared, and they consider us the enemy. Lacking a moral foundation, they will do anything in their power to silence those who speak the truth.
Those who can’t handle the truth try to silence those who speak it.
We see evidence of that around the world (Fitna), in American academia (Expelled), and right here on hot air.
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 10:28 AM
But it would require schools to take it out of their textbooks, wouldn’t it? That is the heart of why evo scientists will not allow discussion of ID, because it raises questions that evolution cannot answer without looking just as fanciful.
Tell me the difference between saying “God did it” and “Aliens did it.”
The Big Bang falls under this category. Yet evolutionists accept it blindly and refuse to allow any other possibility. This is a philosophical difference, not a scientific one. I would argue that if ID must be kept out of the science class, so must evolution be restricted to philosophy class.
You made one argument about ID, and that was a metaphysical one. Trying to claim “‘God must have a creator’ is proof that ID is false” is completely devoid of logic. Do you really need me to list all the logical flaws? Non sequitur comes to mind, and several others.
You can dodge my point all you want, but you cannot escape the logic that neoDarwinism deserves the exact same scrutiny and the exact same treatment in academia as ID does, for the simple reason that it is not provable. All ID proponents are asking for is equal treatment.
Surely you’re not against that, are you?
fossten on April 22, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Any river that washes away large amounts of sediment ends up creating a delta when said river empties into the sea.
The Nile has a delta.
The Mississippi has a delta.
If the Grand Canyon was created by millions of years of slow erosion, where is the Colorado River delta?
The observed evidence in the Grand Canyon fits the Biblical Creation Theory much better than the Darwinian Evolution Theory. Honest people should look at the evidence from both perspectives and ask themselves which theory makes the most sense given the observable evidence.
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Go to http://www.myspace.com/apologetix and listen to the song “Bone Digger”…the music and the lyrics are fantastic and very on-topic for this thread…
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Lyrics for “Bone Digger”
Parody of Gold Digger performed by Kanye West (Featuring Jammie Foxx) and written by Kanye West, Ray Charles, and Renald Richard (Romans 1:18-25, Job 40:15-41:34)
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 11:30 AM
They make a monkey right out of me
Yes, they’ve been tryin’ endlessly
Overeager bonediggers — they never found that jigsaw piece
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 11:30 AM
They make a monkey right out of me
It makes for funky biology
I’m not the kid of some hominid
Who comes from a lizard
Whose mama was a fish
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Now I ain’t h*tin’ on the bone diggers
But I say evolution don’t figure
Now, I ain’t h*tin’ on the bone diggers
But I ain’t never seen no holes bigger
It sounds like no evidence found
It sounds like their heads in the ground
It sounds like they’re just too proud
It sounds quite boneheaded
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 11:31 AM
You need to ponder whether evolution is wrong
Whether maybe you was put on under cover of dawn
They said, “We can tell from rocks, we tell by the carbon”
‘Cause this world has gotta flock of descendants of Charles Robert Darwin
But I’m lookin’ for the odds at casinos
That life could come to be from random acids amino
Zero — we know it’s hocus pocus
And they wanna make all of that an accidental process?
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 11:32 AM
You need to ponder whether evolution is wrong
Whether maybe you was put on under cover of dawn
They said, “We can tell from rocks, we tell by the carbon”
‘Cause this world has gotta flock of descendants of Charles Robert Darwin
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 11:34 AM
But I’m lookin’ for the odds at c*sinos
That life could come to be from random acids amino
Zero — we know it’s hocus pocus
And they wanna make all of that an accidental process?
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 11:35 AM
O.K., let’s pretend a fishy got some kids
That stood up on their fins and crawled up on land
Without evidence and here we are today
If you’re trustin’ in this worldview you better have faith
You know why? They make too much of nothin’
Stuff that I’ve heard it should have been on Mythbusters
Their best forensic samples couldn’t cut the mustard
You don’t care what none of us say you still trust it
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 11:35 AM
(They make a monkey)
Now I ain’t h*tin’ on the bone diggers (right out of me)
But I say evolution don’t figure (It makes for funky)
Now, I ain’t h*tin’ on the bone diggers (biology)
But I ain’t never seen no holes bigger (I’m not the kid)
It sounds like no evidence found (of some hominid)
It sounds like their heads in the ground (who comes from a lizard)
It sounds like they’re just too proud (whose mama was a fish)
It sounds quite boneheaded
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 11:36 AM
1859’s the fateful year — they’ve had 150 years to prove their great new theory
I know some funny ways they found support for some of it, kids
They made some hominids from parts of gibbons and pigs
Your museums are deceiving when you visit one they
Take a couple bones pawn it off as a primate
They were s’posed to find all sorts of life forms we could study
They went to the rocks and got dinosaurs in the muddy
They’re talkin’ down actin’ like the Bible is so funny
Could’ve got dinos sooner if they tried Job 41-y
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 11:36 AM
If it ain’t no bunk, holler “We want proof now, we want proof now, yeah!”
It’s somethin’ that’ll make you mad
Cause all the links they had were either weak or bad
Great big digs since the 1860’s
And after waiting and searchin’ they found out it doesn’t exist?
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Now I ain’t h*ting on the bone digger, no, not me
I’ve found trilobites in stone and some petrified trees
You know evolution ain’t paleontology
Transition forms are lackin’ — got a hole up his sleeve
But — the other option’s not fun
So he gonna make you into a man out of that pond scum
This is his religion baby, don’t be surprised
That fishy on all fours on his jeep’s his messiah
So, let’s no fight — I won’t abuse Darwin ’cause that’s not nice
And they’re gonna keep stallin’ and tryin’ to prove they’re right though
And when you catch on we’ll lead you back to the Bible
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 11:37 AM
It sounds like no evidence found (of some hominid)
It sounds like their heads in the ground (who comes from a lizard)
It sounds like they’re just too proud (whose mama was a fish)
It sounds quite boneheaded
Let me hear them facts.
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Romans 1:18-20
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 11:38 AM
So can I take this statement to mean that you consider the theory of ID to be fanciful?
One states that God did something, the other states that aliens did something.
I am going to stay on topic here and say that for ID to accepted into science classes it must demonstrate on its own merit that it belongs there. What should or should not happen to others theories is not relevent. The case that ID proponents have to make is why ID is a good theory, not why some other theory is a bad one, and certianly not as you seem to be arguing here that why ID is just as bad as other theories.
Yes please explain why you feel that my argument is non sequitur and also please list and explain the several other logical flaws.
I am not against equal scrutiny for ID and other theories. I believe that it has recieved equal scrutiny and has fallen short of the standards of science.
ID proponents do not seem to want equal scrutiny though. They seem to want less scrutiny for ID than other theories recieve. They appear to want science to put its seal of approval on something that is clearly well outside of the scope of science.
Ars Moriendi on April 22, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Too much sugar today, Red Pill?
Ars Moriendi on April 22, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 21 22 23 24 Next »