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 2 3 4 5 ... 24 Next »
jp on April 18, 2008 at 4:49 PM
THANK YOU!!! :)
VolMagic on April 18, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Squid Shark on April 18, 2008 at 4:49
Indeed!!
Nolamom67 on April 18, 2008 at 4:51 PM
Wow! It’s not everyday someone quotes me along with God!!!
db on April 18, 2008 at 4:51 PM
On second thought, after looking at local ticket prices, I might just have to wait until this movie comes out on Netflix. $18 for two tickets, and $50 for the sitter… too much for us.
the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 4:51 PM
Come on, fossten; really 6000 years? How about the Grand Canyon?
We’re talkin’ millions here, not “fossten’s” 6000; right?
Are not “variations”… changes in the DNA of the existing “gene pool”,evolutionary?
locomotivebreath1901, you’re saying…these changes over millions of years in “Deoxyribonucleic acid” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA do not result in evolutionary changes?
Or what…?
“…1901” I’ll give you this not“macro” change, but; “micro” yes!
J_Gocht on April 18, 2008 at 4:51 PM
@ JS on April 18, 2008 at 4:48 PM
No, i think it was the hundreds and hundreds of years of Christianity attacking the theory which has created that argument. The church is opposed to science because science is here to explain our existence. The church already has a story about this, and doesnt want anyone being convinced by facts or observed phenomena and being taken away from the church. Eventually, science will back religion into a corner where either religion will have to incorporate science into their doctrine, or people will cease to be religious. Of course, if they incorporate, the infallibility of the bible gets thrown out the window.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 4:52 PM
myuso,
If you are so convinced that every single ID arguement has been disproven, perhaps you would care to name some.
Sorry, that is not, and never has been an ID arguement.
You honestly believe that the universe being older than 6000 years disproves Christianity? And you have the balls to criticize other people’s intelligence?
Funny, I have met very few Christians who were anti science. Just anti bigots, who want to use their misinterpretation of science to force their belief system onto others.
And you have the temerity to disparage others for believing in something that can’t be proven?
Man, you have to one world class hypocrite.
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Where are the bones? We should be finding them by the train load. Where are they?
Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 4:53 PM
I propose a 4-step experiment for all you folks out there who are debating this:
Step 1: Google, and read, a FAQ purporting to disprove that the Holocaust happened.
Step 2: Google, and read, a FAQ purporting to disprove that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11
Step 3: Google, and read, a FAQ purporting to disprove Big Bang cosmology
Step 4: Compare, and list, the similarities in the respective lines of “reasoning,” for they are legion.
hicsuget on April 18, 2008 at 4:54 PM
everyone take a pill
click here
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KakinPNRiDc
go to 0:41
and voila :)
MechEng5by5 on April 18, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Well, when I created the earth I never expected so much controversy.
How could any of you expect to understand what I actually did. Think about it (with your puny minds), you are trying to understand what I created. I created what you call atoms (I call them BoB). Now how do you create Bob? It’s easy for me, but you can’t even see one, maybe spit one (which then becomes a BB, little God humor).
You talk about creationism, why you don’t know what it takes to create something really big. A world with an unlimited amount of sand, each sand containing molecules,etc. DNA, now that was a stroke of genius (your words not mine, I will explain later), but of course someone ruins it by trying to tie it all together. You won’t ever understand God, I have already told you that. The more you know the less you understand.
What I want is for you to know is that whether it is evolution, or ID, remember, those are your words. As insignificant as they are, they are just some label for you to try to grasp and understand. You measure intelligence, I am (אהיה אשר אהיה,Ehyeh asher Ehyeh) the ultimate therefore can’t be measured, I create, and I allow you to evolve.
Deal with it, and I don’t care if you believe in Me or not…I still love all of you.
Now have a nice weekend…see you on Sunday (or Saturday or any other day).
right2bright on April 18, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Is that why the Catholic church has its own science division?
Brother Astronomer
Skywise on April 18, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Would this be the same “scientific community” that calls anyone who doesn’t believe in catastrophic AGW an idiot?
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Except Creators?
exception on April 18, 2008 at 4:57 PM
I fail to see how you aren’t simply restating the logical argument I made. One never has to disprove a hypothesis. One has to prove it. I am open to proof that God exists. Since there is none, I have to believe that God doesn’t exist. If God does exist, shouldn’t the proof be as easy to find as evolution through natural selection?
I know God doesn’t exist because there is no evidence which indicates God’s existence. My desire for God to exist isn’t evidence. It isn’t proof. It isn’t logical.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on April 18, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Squid Shark,
You might want to look up argument by authority, and why you shouldn’t do it.
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Viscount,
Your problem is that you have gotten to emotional to read straight.
I never stated that you have to believe that God exists.
I stated that your belief that God doesn’t exist can’t be proven.
Therefore your denigration of those who believe something that can’t be proven rebounds equally upon you.
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Well, no. Bones can be quite fragile, and the Earth doesn’t exactly stay still (earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, etc). Many animal remains never even made it to the fossil stage. Heck, the same thing is true today. I’d say 4 out of 5 animals that die in my yard never make it underground (where the remains could be preserved)… they erode away, bones and all. Yes, my cats have a taste for the local bird & squirrel populations.
the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 4:59 PM
As I pointed out earlier, common sense tells you that a watch was created and didn’t evolve. But you seem to think that something far more complex than a watch (the human body) did not have a Creator and was the chance outcome of evolution. Rather than asking for valid proof that shows evolution is wrong, why don’t you offer up some valid proof that shows evolution is right? You can’t.
The Bible provides the explanation of our origins. Why don’t you take your own challenge and provide valid proof that shows the Bible is wrong? You can’t.
Red Pill on April 18, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Uh, first of all my theory may be incorrect according to you, but that doesn’t make it incorrect for me! Secondly I know God in my heart and soul, that is all the “knowledge” I need and everything else is irrelevant. Also, it’s very arrogant of you to even question my knowledge of God as everyone that believes in God knows God in their own way.
As for your theory that God is not bound by the laws he created, well that doesn’t make sense at all, and here’s why: Why would got create laws and not follow them? Seriously, what’s the point? Why create laws that you don’t intend to comply with or be bound by them?
Also, since God is the creator, is all knowing, if he didn’t like the laws he created he could just change them, right?
Lastly, to me my theory makes the most sense, for me. There has to be some form of natural laws or everything would be in a constant state of chaos. Since God is all knowing he had to of known this and created the laws of nature in order to complete his creation, and because he created the laws of nature he understands how to use and manipulate those laws to create whatever he chooses, but this doesn’t negate the fact he still had to work within the laws he created.
This theory doesn’t make God any less powerful or any less omnipresent and I see nothing contradictory or incorrect in my theory in the least. If God doesn’t like the laws he created because they don’t work the way he would like or the laws he created limit his ability to create, he could change them, therefore God is and isn’t bound by the laws of nature.
Liberty or Death on April 18, 2008 at 5:00 PM
exception on April 18, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Good one!
Viscount_Bolingbroke on April 18, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Look at all the angry people!
I bet I could incite riot in the streets of New York by holding a sing reading:
Atheism
Leftism
Abortonist
Darwinist
And another reading:
Christian
Rightist
Pro life
Intelligent design. DISCUSS.
It’d be bloody mayhem! This is why we’ll never achieve world peace.
Capitana on April 18, 2008 at 5:00 PM
ID people should not be allowed to teach science because they use faith in their arguments. This is fine if you want to believe that but you have no right to a job and if your teachings are outside the scientific method then don’t expect to keep your job. The evolutionary theory is far from complete but giving up and just saying “God did it” is not science.
libertytexan on April 18, 2008 at 5:01 PM
With all due respect, so what?
This has nothing to do with evolution.
corona on April 18, 2008 at 5:01 PM
That’s youtube gold there!
the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 5:01 PM
You might want to review.
Big S on April 18, 2008 at 5:01 PM
fosten:
Just because the missing links haven’t been found is not proof that the missing links don’t exist.
Fossilization is an extremely chancy prospect. Only the tiniest fraction of animals get fossilized. Of those that get fossilized, only the tinies fraction are ever found.
There are gaps in the record that cover millions of years during which no fossils have been found.
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:03 PM
@ MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Intelligent design has three main arguments:
Irreducible complexity
Specified complexity
Fine-tuned Universe
All of them are listed on Wikipedia, with responses by the scientific community. All have been shown to be false. That pretty much sums up how ID is completely wrong. I’ll link you , but you wont go and read it, you will prob make a snarky comment about wikipedia instead of accepting that ID is horse crap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Every single missing link has been proven a fraud?
Now I know that you are delusional.
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:04 PM
A watch is too complex to evolve, but a willful skillful watchmaker? Watchmakers just exist.
exception on April 18, 2008 at 5:05 PM
So what you are saying is that you can’t tell the difference, or are you saying it is confusing you, or that it is to difficult to learn about something then make a choice. And after making that choice you have defend it with stupidity?
Ok, 10% of the people still thing Elvis is alive, so we should buy into that?
Read a little, if you are interested, about both sides and then make a decision and prepare to defend that decision…but defend it with integrity, not some anti-holocaust movie.
Get it? There is no conclusive proof, as of now, of evolution, adaptation yes, but not one species evolving into another. That can’t even carbon date something accuratly (one leg of a mammoth was 12,000 years old the other 6,000 years old, and the tree it ate, 120,000 years old). And there is no proof that ID created everything (although my previous post exposed who I am). Neither one is a “sacred cow”, teach them both until one is confirmed. What’s the big deal?
right2bright on April 18, 2008 at 5:05 PM
hicsuget,
Now you are being as dogmatic as fossten. The fact that the earth is billions of years old does not disprove the existence of God.
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Who ever said the Creator came from nothing? God is God. He has always been there:
Red Pill on April 18, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Yes it does. Any mechanism of selection can contribute to evolution. A change in the DNA of one organism that allows it to withstand the antibiotic better gives it a selective advantage such that its genetic information becomes more likely to be passed down along the generations. With billions of bacteria (each potentially having billions of coded “letters” in its DNA), the likelihood of something happening sooner or later is really not that small.
Big S on April 18, 2008 at 5:06 PM
This is incorrect. Gos cannot create a rock so large that he could not lift it anymore than you can be taller than yourself. God would have to be logcially consistent.
VolMagic on April 18, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Kaptain America,
Prior to the existence of the universe, the very concept of time had no meaning. Which means the question of what existed before the universe is a question that has no meaning.
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:07 PM
@ Capitana on April 18, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Except lumping atheists in with leftists and abortionists is crap. I am an atheist, conservative who is not too big of a fan of abortion. I don’t think you have to believe in a little book to be considered a conservative. This thread is already making me semi embarrassed to be both an American and a conservative.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:07 PM
@ VolMagic on April 18, 2008 at 5:07 PM
God created logic, so he can break it. That is the response you are gonna get, just making it for the religious people.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Ok, so far from this thread we have learned that:
Man is too complex to have evolved and therefore requires a creator who must be even more complex than he is.
This creator however is so complex that he has no creator himself.
???
Ok. I guess.
Ars Moriendi on April 18, 2008 at 5:08 PM
MarktheGreat:
To restate your line of reasoning yet again:
A = God (or teacup circling Mars)
I cannot prove that A is not true.
Therefore A is true.
My line of reasoning:
A is not proven to be true.
Therefore A is not true.
How exactly is my logic faulty?
Also, you said:
My *not* believing is the same as believing? This sounds suspiciously like “So are you but what am I?” By your own admission God can’t be proven, so therefore I am safe is saying that since the hypothesis of existence of God is not proven true, it must be false. If what you are trying to say is that you agree with me that unproven hypotheses should be taken as false, then we are done here.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on April 18, 2008 at 5:08 PM
once again, you prove yourself to be delusional.
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:09 PM
@ Red Pill on April 18, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Your God sounds like an ass. He has always been there, and after hundreds of thousands of years of humans and animals killing each other savagely, he suddenly woke up from his drunken haze and decided to impart his greatness on the earth for all of what, 3 thousand years, and then he stopped for the last 2 thousand years?
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Well then, let me rephrase the question. Why do we find train loads of “regular” fossils but no transitional fossils? And the transitional fossils should have been much more abundant.
Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 5:10 PM
r2b… for this time only, I agree!
J_Gocht on April 18, 2008 at 5:10 PM
We saw this same intolerance play out with AIDs reseaarch, we see it with Global Warming. The “silence dissent at all costs” approach to science seems to be mainstream, which is very disconcerting.
Spolitics on April 18, 2008 at 5:11 PM
That doesn’t make him either a creationist or an ID’er.
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:12 PM
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Those are very good Wikipedia articles. Kudos for linking to them!
Viscount_Bolingbroke on April 18, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Let’s see. Creationish says that God created the entire earth, exactly as it is, about 6000 years ago.
ID’ers admit that the universe is billions of years old, and that evolution happened. They believe that this evolution was guided by the hand of God.
If you want to believe that there is no difference between these positions, then go ahead.
But don’t expect to be taken seriously by anyone who is capable of independant thought.
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:15 PM
@ Spolitics on April 18, 2008 at 5:11 PM
ITs not silencing dissent. ID has been proven wrong. All of its tenets fail. Its like if a person was still trying to push steam engines as a valid alternative to gas for the automakers. Eventually, you just tell them to shut the hell up, because their arguments are stale, wrong and never change.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:17 PM
fossten did manage to get one thing half right. The earth isn’t millions of years old.
It’s closer to 4.3 billion years old.
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Actually, this very argument disproves evolution. In an infinite Universe (and to our knowledge it is yet infinite, because despite repeated attempts, we can’t find the edge,) the theory of evolution coupled with the laws of chance and mathematical probability require that evolution produce other advanced civilizations. If fact, an infinite number of advance civilizations which by definition would be required to have contacted Earth at some point, and dare I say it, almost constantly. An almost infinite number of these civilizations would be vastly superior to Earth – math, ergo evolution requires it.
The lack of life on other planets is a form of proof that evolution is not right in it’s entirety. And I think that’s what a lot of scientist would like to say. Something along the lines of “we just don’t know – believe what you want,” but, like Stien tries to demonstrate, that would be heresy in a religion that dictates absolute conformity (the religion of leftist, liberal , intellectualism.) We’ve seen it in the Global Warming debate with equal ferocity.
Ironic as it may sound, these intellectuals are likely to put us into another dark ages with their intolerance.
Wise Golden on April 18, 2008 at 5:17 PM
@ Viscount_Bolingbroke on April 18, 2008 at 5:13 PM
No problem. I am a huge fan of wiki, read it daily.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Considering that we aren’t finding fossils by the train load, why do you think that examples of every single type of creature that ever lived should be findable?
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:18 PM
See my 5:17 post. Hot-Air doesn’t have enough empty pages for all of the proofs to be displayed.
Wise Golden on April 18, 2008 at 5:20 PM
@ Wise Golden on April 18, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Wait, why would they be required to contact earth? There is no probability model that shows where we would most likely be on the level of advanceness among all possible species in the universe. It doesnt exist. You are making things up to argue against. Just because the dozen or so planets we have looked at with telescopes haven’t shown life is NO argument against evolution. What are you talking about.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:21 PM
I forget who answered this claim (maybe CS Lewis, not sure). Have you ever been to Venus? Actually been there? Then how do you know for sure it exists? Where is your incontrovertible proof? You believe it exists because lots of people have said it exists, other people claim to have photographed it, other people have put a diagram of the solar system in books or on the Internet or whatever. You will in all likelihood never visit Venus. But it is reasonable to believe in Venus because of reasonable evidence that Venus exists, and one of these pieces of evidence is your trust of the word of the authority of the scientists who say it exists. Why? Because you find it reasonable to put trust in the things they say.
Evidence is not the same as incontrovertible proof, and absolute irrefutable proof is not required for a belief to be reasonable. It is reasonable for a person to believe in an intelligent Creator by the evidences he sees, including but not limited to the orderliness of the universe and the interplay of animal and plant life, the existence of knowledge of right and wrong in human beings (even the most dedicated professed moral relativists have a sense of fairness and absolutes when it involves rights for themselves, as Lewis pointed out in Mere Christianity).
“Since there is none [no incontrovertible proof], I have to believe that God doesn’t exist” is not a rational statement. “The evidence that exists for the existence of a Creator, I don’t find convincing because of X,X and X [fill in your own blanks]” would be a much more logical thing to say.
inviolet on April 18, 2008 at 5:21 PM
libertytexan,
So teaching your faith is acceptable, but teaching anyone else’s faith is unaccptable?
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:21 PM
I did start reading your objections in Wiki…then stopped as soon as I found your first theory was disproved by a trial. Imagine the OJ jurists…now imagine jurists understanding irreducible complexity.
Gee, you sure picked a great argument, 12 people came out from the trailer made 12 bucks a day, and decided that irreducible complexity is wrong….HAHAAHAHAHAAHHAA!
You might want to try something like this to win your argument.
At least you won’t look like a fool when presenting your anti ID posts.
right2bright on April 18, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Is this true? I thought the general consensus was the Universe was ~15 billion years old. Thus it could have, at most, a ~30 billion light years diameter. No?
VolMagic on April 18, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Fossten — you really have kicked some major butt on this thread and made the evolutionists look exactly like fools. It is clear you have a solid Biblical and scientific background. Kudos to you my friend … and to the others who have had the gonads to speak up for Creationism in such a hostile thread. :)
It surprises me that the evolution or die folk aren’t swallowing the global warming hoax hook line and sinker too. Well, many are! :)
wytammic on April 18, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Ah yes, muyoso is using the classic, I can find a somebody with a fancy degree who agrees with me, so I must be right argument.
And to think, he’s actually impressed with his intellectual abilities.
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:23 PM
No. It does not. Because you cannot show how it was done, does not imply that it did not happen. Clearly it did.
That we haven’t found it, doesn’t mean its there. If it’s there, it does not follow that it’s necessarily more advanced – people want to believe this, but it’s a false belief to assume as much. Or it doesn’t mean that other life wasn’t destroyed at some point either.
lorien1973 on April 18, 2008 at 5:24 PM
@ Wise Golden on April 18, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Your 5:17 post is, with all due respect, drivel. There is no mathematical model which shows where would MUST be on the scale of advanced civilizations. There are many stages of advanceness that we can understand. We are most likely a level 0 civilization. Once we harness the power of a star, we will be a level 1 civilization. Once we harness the power of a galazy, we will be a level 2 civiliation. Once we harness dark energy, we will be a level 3 civilization. It takes a level 2 to be able to travel to other galazies and a level 3 to be able to travel across the universe. This is of course, all speculation by a nobel prize winning scientist, but it makes at least some sort of sense.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:24 PM
I remember now. It was Peter Kreeft.
inviolet on April 18, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Maxx – I don’t know. I don’t have an answer to that, at least not one that I can back up with reams of science. Personally, I’ll call it bad luck. There’s so much about the universe that we don’t know yet, and I doubt that I’ll live long enough to learn .000001% of that knowledge. Even though I believe evolution occured (and still is), I still believe ID should be taught in school. It encourages debate and even creative thinking. At the end of the day, the child who believes in ID will most likely still believe in it and likewise for the child that believes in evolution. What will be different is that they know the other person’s beliefs exist, and are as equally valid (given the amount of proof/lack thereof on both sides).
Of course, we can’t possibly have our children engage in rational thought in today’s schools. Keep it simple to keep them stupid.
the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 5:25 PM
@ MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:23 PM
What? Its not the person with the fancy degree that agrees with me. I think you have this relationship turned around. I agree with the person with the fancy degree.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Oh Ooo…
Now I have a problem! The atomic decay of carbon, can be quite accurate +/- a few thousand years.
J_Gocht on April 18, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Ben Stein says he believes that God Created the earth and everything in it….. but somehow that doesn’t make him a creationist? Maybe you should look at the definition of creationist.
Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 5:26 PM
something that has a beginning cannot be infinite.
Kaptain Amerika on April 18, 2008 at 5:26 PM
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:21 PM
If your argument is based on chance, then you have to accept chance on both sides of the argument.
Wise Golden on April 18, 2008 at 5:27 PM
we would be living under an unalterable celestial dictatorship that could read our thoughts while we were asleep and convict us of thought crime and pursue us after we after are dead
- Hitchens, in one of his many great statements about the problem with god.
lorien1973 on April 18, 2008 at 5:28 PM
@ wytammic on April 18, 2008 at 5:23 PM
This is a case of seeing what you want to see. He was made to look like a complete fool in this thread. He said many things which were outright lies and falsehoods, and was shown to no understand even the simplest explanation of evolution. Then when he was challenged, he clocked out of the thread.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:28 PM
My comment wasn’t in favor of ID. I was expressing my concern over the way science seems intent on silencing dissent. We seem to see that tactic play out whenever politics and science are combined. I don’t know anything about ID and I haven’t seen the film, so I can’t speak intelligently about either. But Ed’s review said the film made a strong case regarding the importance of freedom of scientific inquiry. And given what I know about other issues, it’s enough to make me want to see that film and hear that case.
Spolitics on April 18, 2008 at 5:28 PM
That’s easy. Just because something has not been proven true, is not evidence that it must be false.
It was many decades before Einstein’s theories could be proven by experimentation. Some of them still haven’t been. Was Einstein wrong, up to the moment he was proven true?
If you are convinced that God does not exist, then this is something that you have taken on faith. Since that is a proposition that can never be proven. (Look up the impossibility of proving a negative assertion.)
Therefore it is highly hypocritical of you to denigrate anyone who takes an issue on faith, since you are guilty of that same sin.
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Well, I see Venus regularly. Not neutron stars however, and there I have to look more to others. But not by trusting the word of authority, but because I understand the process they use. A scientist’s authority means very little.
exception on April 18, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 5:26 PM
You’re confusing a definition with a theology. Creationists belive, I think, that we live on a young Earth, something that is only 6000 years old. And various other things.
VolMagic on April 18, 2008 at 5:29 PM
@ Wise Golden on April 18, 2008 at 5:27 PM
What? I never mentioned chance at all.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:29 PM
There are old earth creationists and new earth creationists. Old earthers accept the world to be billions of years old. New earth ones think its ~6000 years old.
Old earthers go by the thought that “yom” in the old testament does not mean day, but rather an indefinite period of time.
lorien1973 on April 18, 2008 at 5:30 PM
We don’t find train loads of fossils.
The total number of hominid fossils is only a few dozen, and none of them are complete.
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Dozen or so telescopes? We’ve been searching since the time of Galileo – with thousands of telescopes. The Hubbell Scope was built to see the big bang and couldn’t do it. So they built the X-ray observatory (100 times more powerful,) and they couldn’t do it. So then, they created the massively networked array (1000 times more powerful,) and they still can’t find it.
Read about string theory. Most people who develop the intellect capable of understanding it usually walk away with a belief in God.
Wise Golden on April 18, 2008 at 5:31 PM
ah yes, now muyoso is using the, unless God lives up to my standards, he doesn’t exist.
Is there any logical fallacy that he won’t use before the night is over?
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:32 PM
@ Spolitics on April 18, 2008 at 5:28 PM
I understand. I haven’t seen the film either, but i have seen many like it. It is an appeal to freedom in the scientific community, from a group that FAILS to use anything scientific. They want in, but refuse to play by the rules. Also, the argument of intelligent design has been shown to be silly, and all of the examples that the CREATORS of the theory used to justify its existence have been shown to be wrong. Again, its like a person trying to sell the automotive industry the steam engine and claiming it is just as good as the combustion engine. Its been proven that the steam engine can’t hold a candle to the combustion engine, but yet that steam engine salesman wont give up.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:32 PM
According to Rotten Tomatoes.com, only two out of twenty-two film critics gave the film a positive rating. Everybody else called it “poorly argued” and “biased.” These are the same people who loved An Inconvenient Truth and all of Michael Moore’s documentaries.
Frank T.J Mackey on April 18, 2008 at 5:33 PM
This is actually a point in favor of evolution. As new fossils are found, theories change and adapt to new findings. The creationist argument says the new fossils don’t matter at all – that’s the problem with creation; it’s stagnant. Adaptive theories, while never perfect, are always improving.
lorien1973 on April 18, 2008 at 5:33 PM
if life happened by chance on 1 in 1,000,000 planets, there would be literally millions upon millions of planets with life on them in the known universe.
why does God forsake all other planets?
does he send a son to every planet?
why did god think that the earth was flat?
why did god not know about dinosaurs?
why did god think that the sun revolved around the earth?
oh that’s right, because god did not write the bible, men who wiped their asses with their hands did… mmm that will make you think.
Kaptain Amerika on April 18, 2008 at 5:33 PM
You completely misunderstood what I was saying. All three groups I mentioned point to minor alleged inconsistencies in things that they can not or will not comprehend, and on the basis of their nitpicking expect the whole edifice of science or history to collapse.
What’s worse, is that all the nitpicking, all the alleged inconsistencies, upon closer examination by persons more knowledgable in the subjects concerned, are shown to be both accurate and consistent.
Holocaust denial, Truferism, and anti-Cosmology/Geology/Biology ideas are spread using a large corpus of half-truths and outright fabrications to overwhelm their audiences’ cognitive ability. The point is not to get them to believe the denialists outright at first, but simply to get their audience to doubt that the truth is knowable at all.
The example of the mammoth your provided is just a small example of this. In order to refute you, I would have had to have heard of this particular experiment, know all about it, and have at my fingertips the counter-argument, which, before I would be done explaining it, you’d move on to your next talking point.
Fortunately I can take a much simpler approach, and say that a single experiment screwed up by a single under-paid and under-fed grad student is not enough to invalidate the whole corpus of mankind’s knowledge of biology; nor would 100 such experiments.
hicsuget on April 18, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Is this true? I thought the general consensus was the Universe was ~15 billion years old. Thus it could have, at most, a ~30 billion light years diameter. No?VolMagic on April 18, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Read string theory. In short, the “laws” of physics that we’ve been taught are….wait for it…wrong.
Wise Golden on April 18, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Which is exactly my point. Atheism is a belief system, not a scientific conclusion. The scientific mind would say, “Not proven” — agnosticism. You have faith that God doesn’t exist, not proof.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Like I said.
Ed Morrissey on April 18, 2008 at 5:33 PM
If evolution were indeed the method by which man came upon the earth, a clear and indisputable physical record would exist, a physical collection of artifacts would stand as evidence to this happening as clearly as the pyramids stand in evidence to the Egyptian culture.
Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 5:34 PM
VolMagic — meant to quote, not strike out.
Wise Golden on April 18, 2008 at 5:34 PM
No. It wasn’t.
lorien1973 on April 18, 2008 at 5:34 PM
There has never been a creature that has evolved FROM one species TO another that we know of. If I am wrong on this, someone please tell me the names of the origianl animal and its species and then the second animal and its NEW species. Darwins observations of species in the Galapagos showed how animals of the same species evolve specific traits due to their environment; but they are variants of the SAME species none the less. The Theory of Evolution postulates that species can adapt/evolve into new species, but we have no known examples of this specific transformation actually taking place.
Lunkinator on April 18, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Um, not it wasn’t.
exception on April 18, 2008 at 5:35 PM
@ MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:32 PM
You sound like a child. I never made any claim about God existing or not. Personally I believe he doesn’t, but i might be wrong. What I can tell you is that the earth is older than 6k years old and that intelligent design is a load of crap.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:35 PM
A Creationist believes that everything was created as is, 6000 years ago.
Stein didn’t say that. Do I really have to explain such a basic difference to you?
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Wise Golden on April 18, 2008 at 5:31 PM
String theory is awesome, something I’ve read a lot about, but it’s never led me back to God. However, it is connected to a very fundamental aspect of my beliefs. I’m glad to know that I’m not the only one moved spiritually by an aspect of scientific theory.
the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 5:36 PM
muyoso,
And you sound like an arrogant prick who actually believes that just because someone agrees with him, he must be right.
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:37 PM
I agree, and that is all the ID movement is asking for.
Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 5:37 PM
There are two arguments going on in this forum: one between IDers and people who accept the standard scientific theories, and one between Young Earth Creationists and everyone else. You are correct that my argument as you quoted does not disprove ID (by its very nature it cannot be disproven, but that’s another matter for another time). My argument, if true, however, would disprove Young Earth Creationism, not by disproving Creationism, but by disproving the “young earth” part. I apologize for your confusion.
hicsuget on April 18, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Red Pill on April 18, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 24 Next »