Movie Review: Expelled
posted at 3:00 pm on April 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
While at CPAC in February, I had an opportunity to attend an advance screening of the new documentary, Expelled: The Movie. Ben Stein focuses on a perceived lack of intellectual freedom afforded to those who either believe in or investigate Intelligent Design theories in the scientific community. I wrote the following review at the time; the producers may have made some changes since, but I don’t believe it would change the thrust of my review. I plan on seeing the theatrical release this weekend, and would recommend it to everyone as at least a way to discuss the values and limitations of scientific inquiry and intellectual openness in American Academia.
The bloggers at CPAC received an invitation to screen a new documentary on academic intolerance called Expelled: The Movie this evening. The documentary features Ben Stein on a quest to understand the near-hysteria caused by scientists who so much as broach the idea of intelligent design in papers or in research. It follows Stein as he interviews professors denied tenure, editors fired, and journalists shunned for touching the subject even at its most innocuous levels.
Before discussing my feelings about the film, which is still in post-production and will not go into release until April, I should explain my approach to the ID/evolution debate. I believe evolution is demonstrably proven in enough examples to say that its effect on variation in species cannot be denied. The example I used tonight in discussing this with another viewer (certainly not the only example) is antibiotic effects on bacteria. Antibiotics that kill 99% of bacteria eventually promote the survival and the expansion of the 1% that resist them, created superbacteria that require another set of antibiotics to cure, and so on.
That said, evolution does not interfere with my faith in God. God certainly could have created the universe with a design that included life. The rational laws of nature would include evolution, as well as the myriad of other rational and mathematically provable mechanisms that undergird nature. In fact, the impulse of man to discover the rational laws of nature began with the belief in a rational God, as scientists understood nature’s rationality to reveal an intelligent Creator.
I’d go deeper than that, but Dinesh D’Souza covers it nicely enough already in his book What’s So Great About Christianity, and it’s getting late enough as it is. Suffice it to say that evolution doesn’t present a threat to my worldview.
Rationally, we have to admit that some use ID as an excuse to teach the more literal form of Creationism that has been used to argue against evolution entirely, especially against teaching evolution in primary-school classrooms. That admission does not appear in Expelled, which is a glaring omission. It tends to take out of context the frustration some scientists have about ID, and its place in polarizing the debate over its use. Properly framed, ID accepts all of the science without accepting its transformation into its own belief system.
What do I mean by that? In this, the film does an excellent job of demonstrating atheism as a belief system. Atheism as represented by Richard Dawkings and others in this film gets exposed as exactly the kind of belief system they claim to despise. They can’t prove God exists — and they can’t prove God doesn’t exist. They make the common fallacy of arguing that absence of evidence amounts to evidence of absence.
But in a way, this is all secondary to the real issue of the film: academic intolerance. The debate over ID vs Darwinism sets the table for a truly disturbing look at academia. Science should be about the free debate and research of ideas and hypotheses for duplicable results and provable theorems. However, as the examples Stein and the film provide amply show, the Darwinist academic establishment will brook no dissent from the orthodoxy — and scientists have to be shown with hidden faces to speak to the issue for the film.
Amusingly, Stein asks people how the first cell came to be. None of the scientists could give him a straight answer. Dawkins himself admits he doesn’t know and that no one else does, either — but postulates that aliens could have brought life to this planet, and then postulates that another alien civilization could have brought life to that planet, and so on. He then concedes that one entity could have been the original source … but insists that entity could not possibly have been God. For this he gives absolutely no evidence at all, relegating it as a belief system somewhat akin to Scientology.
All of this is extremely effective, as are the many allusions made to the Berlin Wall during the film. The theme runs throughout, and it explicitly refers to the defensive academic establishment as having built a wall that tramples on freedom of thought and discourse. Less effective is the heavy references to the Nazis in the movie. Although emotionally affecting for some obvious reasons, the fact is that while the Nazis were mostly Darwinists (along with a lot of other things), the vast majority of Darwinists aren’t Nazis. Certainly the eugenicists in Nazi Germany were mightily influenced by Darwinism, but America had its own eugenicists, which the film points out.
I should point out that the film has not finished production, and that changes will be made between now and its release in April. The filmmakers just completed an interview with Christopher Hitchens and will include it in the final cut. I believe other changes may be made which could address some of the criticisms I’ve written here.
Overall, though, the film presents a powerful argument not for intelligent design as much as for the freedom of scientific inquiry. If scientists get punished for challenging orthodoxy, we will not expand our learning but ossify it in concrete. Expelled: The Movie is entertaining, maddening, funny, and provocative, and well worth your time.
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: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 24 »
you need to know an animal that evolved into another?
Dogs? Horses? Cats?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html#part2
Kaptain Amerika on April 18, 2008 at 5:37 PM
@ Lunkinator on April 18, 2008 at 5:34 PM
You do know that every single different looking bird, snake, fox, dog, cat and any other animal is a different species right? YOu do understand that we have bred wolves to be dogs, which are considered new species right? No, apparently you do not.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:38 PM
@ MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:37 PM
When the hell did I do any of the things you are accusing me of? Who did I say agreed with m e? WTF thread are you reading?
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Everywhere else “yom” is used in the Bible, that is what it means.
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Red Pill on April 18, 2008 at 5:40 PM
I understand that. But in other texts, yom means many things: an hour, a half day, a day or an indefinite period of time.
I’m not defending old earthers, I’m just explaining it.
lorien1973 on April 18, 2008 at 5:40 PM
@ Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 5:37 PM
You want something which has ABSOLUTELY NO basis in fact taught in schools? Something which has actually been disproven? Thank “god” you are not on the school board.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Merovign on April 18, 2008 at 3:37 PM
FFS Merovign, that’s his entire point. How about taking 30 seconds to actually find that out?
BathTub on April 18, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Everyone knows that the pyramids were just landing pads for Goa’uld ships.
Evolution is not straight-forward and clear-cut (in my opinion and belief); why should the evidence be?
the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 5:41 PM
I haven’t read through all of the comments, but if no one has suggested it, I strongly recommend the book, “Darwin’s Black Box” as a treatise by a scientist on molecular evolution. The author speaks from years of experience, and reviews the theory of evolution on a molecular level, and shows that the current theory is tenuous at best.
Think_b4_speaking on April 18, 2008 at 5:41 PM
@ Red Pill on April 18, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Well if your choice of the hundreds of religions is the right one, I guess I will be in hell with the other tens of billions of people who chose to believe something else.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Ed,
As a long-time CQ reader, it pains me to disagree with you like this, but I’m going to do it anyway.
I cannot speak to the beliefs of the person whom you quoted, but I can speak to my own. I am an atheist not because I have faith that God does not exist, but because I have no faith that he does exist. To paraphrase a quote with which so many liberties have already been taken, absence of belief is not belief of absence.
hicsuget on April 18, 2008 at 5:43 PM
muyoso,
So you want to stop the teaching of evolution in school?
MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:44 PM
BTW, the evolutionists sure sound like the global warmists — “There is no debate allowed! The science is settled! By consensus, even!
Think_b4_speaking on April 18, 2008 at 5:44 PM
So…you don’t believe anything unless you understand the process used? Even if you’re a Mensa genius (and not denigrating geniuses; perhaps you are) you must not believe very much then.
My point is: in addition to the evidence of their senses, EVERYONE relies on evidence of the trustworthines of some authority (evidence of varied kinds, like corroboration or “understanding the process” or belief in the speaker’s integrity, as with a recommendation for a prospective employee for example), and then believes things based on that authority, in at least some things.
inviolet on April 18, 2008 at 5:44 PM
@ the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 5:41 PM
But god creating man, and then trying to cover it all up by having ALL evidence show that man evolved, IS straight forward? God placing dinosaur bones to trick humans is straight forward?
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:44 PM
= trustworthiness
inviolet on April 18, 2008 at 5:45 PM
You didn’t read the definition did you? Even after I linked it for you….. OK ….. here it is again, see if you get it this time.
Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 5:46 PM
I understood, you don’t understand my post…the one I quoted substantiates what I was posting. You have the ability to discern…and I am assuming learn.
If you believe that carbon dating is absolutely infallible, good for you. You may want to read a little more about how inaccurate it is.
If you want to believe what you are told in grade school from day one, good, you may want to read a little more. I gave a great link to counter the ID argument in a prior post (Scientific American). I have no problem with someone believing in something I don’t believe in. Regardless of the mindless snarky comments you make when someone disagrees with you.
But if you believe in evolution, you should have some proof of it…No? If not, then it has the same effect and is in the same category of a religion. You believe because of faith, not fact. No problem, you and others just won’t admit it, so you create “evidence”, and demean others who do not accept your evidence…and now we are back to your quote above. Don’t use fabrications and half-truths to argue your point…well stated, now follow your example.
right2bright on April 18, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Actually it has been proven FALSE every single time one tests it. Many scientists actually incorporate intelligent design into their experiments, but don’t mention it due to fear of ostracism or worse!
The example you used re. bacteria does NOT prove evolution whatsoever. In fact it disproves evolution and proves the Bible is true…God created each thing ‘after their own kind’. A bacteria, no matter how it changes, will always be a bacteria! A dog no matter how it changes through breeding etc. will always be a dog.
There has never been ONE example(and never will be) of a species turning into another species!
How terribly disappointing Ed.
It is disappointing to see that you also have been seduced into believing the “gap theory”. The gap theory is completely un-Biblical and not only is it irreconcilable with the Holy Bible, it is an idolatrous doctrine.
If you can’t trust the Bible’s history,geology,biology etc. how can you trust the message of Jesus Christ and how he died for the sins of mankind?
This is exactly how satan works to sow the seeds of doubt and turn people away from believing the Gospel and becoming saved.
Here is a video I think you will enjoy Ed..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5280466483711922101&q=ken+ham&ei=cBYJSP67BZLQ4gLDmd3fDg
SaintOlaf on April 18, 2008 at 5:46 PM
@ MarkTheGreat on April 18, 2008 at 5:44 PM
I think you are mistaken, ALL facts point towards evolution, because that is how science works. Evolution is the accepted theory until something comes along to disprove it. Just like how the big bang is the accepted theory, because all evidence points towards it, until of course evidence comes along to disprove it. I know religious people arent used to this form of belief system where things *gasp* CHANGE, as more evidence comes in, but try and keep up.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:46 PM
muyoso, I don’t believe in God. You haven’t been reading anything else I wrote, or who I was responding to.
the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 5:47 PM
There is a lot of debate in evolution.
There is also a lot of scientific debate in global warming.
There is “no debate allowed” among global warming activists.
Don’t confuse things.
lorien1973 on April 18, 2008 at 5:47 PM
If we could just start with getting “An Inconvenient Truth” out of schools, that would be nice.
Pablo on April 18, 2008 at 5:47 PM
You can’t prove a negative, Ed.
It’s not that atheism is a belief system. It’s that we take the lack of evidence of God at face value. That’s all there is to it.
Well, we also like patronizing believers. :)
Enrique on April 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Red Pill on April 18, 2008 at 5:49 PM
It seems to me, that creationists want there to be “no debate” about creation. It happened. And that’s that. Dammit!
lorien1973 on April 18, 2008 at 5:49 PM
@ SaintOlaf on April 18, 2008 at 5:46 PM
What can I say, wow. So I guess that when we eat genetically engineered corn, we are eating humans? We are cannibals now? Because HUMAN genes have been used to engineer products, and your argument is that no matter what happens to them, they will always be human genes. So we are eating part human corn? You sound ridiculously silly, and make no sense. NOTHING prove god exists, or you would have the pope on TV screaming about it. If there was a single bit of evidence for God, every religious person in the world couldn’t be shut up.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Because dead things leave bones.
Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 5:50 PM
you should read your own name…
I am very open to debate, as are almost all evolutionists I know… in fact most of them that I know, look forward to the debate so that they might save your eternal soul or lack there of…
Kaptain Amerika on April 18, 2008 at 5:50 PM
As I understand it, ID doesn’t try to refute evolution. It is not a competing theory. It tries to explain that which evolution does not explain. The only point where the two clash, that I’m aware of, is that what evolution assigns to random chance, ID considers design.
Pablo on April 18, 2008 at 5:50 PM
In defense of Stein, I believe that his take on this whole thing is NOT that of a vendetta against Darwinian evolution, or even that of support for the positions postulated by the ID community. Rather, what pushed him into making this film is simply the history behind the holocaust. Six million Jews were murdered because the Nazis not only believed in Darwinian evolution, but sought to accelerate human evolution through selective breeding and the creation of the “master race.” They were so “damn certain” of the inferiority and undesirability of the other races that their mindset led to a campaign of extermination and genocide that is unparalleled in fervor, efficiency, and horror anywhere in recorded human history.
People forget that the Third Reich began with book-burnings and the suppression of verbal or written dissent. Oppressive, murderous, totalitarian regimes ALWAYS use this kind of suppression of dissent/censorship/mob group-think to consolidate their grip on the populace BEFORE they begin to carry out their more dastardly deeds (like the German trains transporting people to the death camps).
Stein is not only correct in drawing the general public’s attention to all of this, but I am fairly certain that he feels a moral obligation to do so. The collective mind-set of the “so-called” scientific community is disturbingly similar to that of the Nazis. Let’s face it. Academia is addicted to research grants. They will let NOTHING stand between them and their funding sources — and they don’t care how many civil liberties are suspended, how many people they ruin, or even if people die along the way. One is left wondering if the people in academia care one whit about the truth, or if for them, it’s all about securing tenure and additional grant money.
My collie says:
More evidence that the atheism that dominates the academic community leads to an amoral vacuum of personality integrity, where the lust for power/fame, and greed reign supreme.
My collie says:
Human Nature 101. It ALWAYS works out this way when human nature is left to it’s own devices — unrestrained, with no checks or balances.
CyberCipher on April 18, 2008 at 5:50 PM
@ Red Pill on April 18, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Good for Jesus. I don’t exactly take quotes from the world’s original zombie seriously though.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 5:50 PM
But the bones don’t always last. We’ve been over this. I think we agree that this debate is valid (and should be in schools) but we disagree on our personal viewpoints about both evolution and ID. Fair enough?
the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 5:52 PM
@ Pablo on April 18, 2008 at 5:50 PM
You are right, kind of. Originally, it was put out there as a competing theory, and then when it was completely destroyed, they tried to argue that the two theories could coexist. Same thing happened with creationism. ID will not survive much longer though, and then the next crazy theory will follow the same path.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Stein invoking Godwin’s Law isn’t helping him, in my eyes.
lorien1973 on April 18, 2008 at 5:53 PM
dead things only leave bones for a very short time. 1 in 50,000 will become partially fossilized and only a small percentage of those will be maintained for any lengthy amount of time… Fossils are rare and far and few between.
i.e. there will be no proof you existed, except for your misconceptions which will likely live on in infamy for millenia here on HotAir.com
Kaptain Amerika on April 18, 2008 at 5:53 PM
.
Tell that to the science teacher who tried to have me expelled for disagreeing with the premise that ‘evolution is a proven fact, and beyond debate’
Think_b4_speaking on April 18, 2008 at 5:54 PM
@ the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Got me there. Sorry if I offended or said something asslike, im prone to do that. Kinda jumped into this thread halfway through.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:55 PM
LOL.
You don’t know much about the scientific method, do you? What you describe is not how true science works. Theories are tested and shown to be true by repeated scientific observation. Theories are not just “accepted” without evidence.
All of the evidence is of Natural Selection within an existing DNA gene pool. There is no evidence of the creation of new DNA on the way to being a new species.
Red Pill on April 18, 2008 at 5:55 PM
The point of the movie expelled is not just that evolution is a “pseudo science” (a scientifically impossible state run religion)..but also that “scientists” will dogmatically censor,deny tenure,fire,ostracize and even jail any scientist that refuses to go along with their fairy tale!
how idiotic is it to say
It’s lunacy.
This is exactly what satan does to deceive people into becoming atheists.
Evolution is scientifically impossible!
Why would it ever be acceptable to have the government teach lies to children…specifically lies that force kids to discard the Bible?
SaintOlaf on April 18, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Those are fundamentally different things. Only a fool accepts something scientific based on authority or personal integrity. The methods and processes science uses are what matters.
exception on April 18, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Hey muyoso, animal husbandry is not evolution. I have never seen a breeder able to produce a dog by breeding cats. I have never seen evidence that crow can produce an eagle as an offspring. Perhaps cats dogs and horses share a commomn ancestor which would be proof of evolution; but even scientific family trees are re-written with new evidence. And almost all of them have a space for “the missing link” that tie’s everything up in a nice little bundle. That why it’s called the THEORY of evolution, even in science classes.
Lunkinator on April 18, 2008 at 5:55 PM
DEVO Said it all in 1975.
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on April 18, 2008 at 5:56 PM
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:55 PM
It’s all good.
the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 5:56 PM
.
RP, I rarely agree with you, but you are correct on this one.
Think_b4_speaking on April 18, 2008 at 5:56 PM
@ Red Pill on April 18, 2008 at 5:55 PM
I understand the scientific method fine. Evolution cannot be observed, except over such vast time scales that no person can hope to see it within their lifetime. Thus, it will almost certainly remain a theory for quite a while. Thus, it is the accepted theory, until that is, it can be observed and measured, then it becomes fact.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Allow me to play devil’s advocate here… but if you stopped listening to the theory, how do you know whether or not it’s the same old thing? After all, didn’t the science behind evolution evolve? From my very limited knowlege of ID, it seems the problem is that the theory is not testable, so it’s a blend of science and philosophy. But when there are unknowns, don’t scientists usually fill in the blanks with a little philosphy and guess-work? It’d be fine with me if they banned everything that isn’t testable from science classes, but they don’t. After all, they still teach Freud in Psychology classes and there wasn’t much science behind his ideas.
Spolitics on April 18, 2008 at 5:58 PM
@ Lunkinator on April 18, 2008 at 5:55 PM
I never said it was. I was saying that one species CAN create another species, it has happened thousands of times.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 5:58 PM
This thread is growing faster than I can read,
Just jumping to the end to say that Evolution and Christianity are not compatable. The whole point of Christ demands that the Genesis account of Adam is accurate and not some sort of metaphor. No Adam, and Adams fall, no need for a Christ nor Christianity.
Anyone who molds their Christian belief to fit anothers arguement (”God could have used evolution”) has already lost the debate.
AverageJoe on April 18, 2008 at 5:58 PM
No basis in fact you say? We are here aren’t we? We didn’t get here by evolution because the fossil record clearly establishes that fact.
So you must be talking about “evolution” as having no basis in fact, and to that, I agree that mindless propaganda should not be foisted upon our children.
Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Not true. I think he mentioned he was leaving work — not just opting out of the thread.
wytammic on April 18, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Name one, please.
AverageJoe on April 18, 2008 at 5:59 PM
People on this thread (and I respectfully include Ed in the original post) keep equating evidence with proof. THEY’RE NOT THE SAME THING!!! eleventy!! (Thanks I feel better :) )
Seriously, there is a lot of evidence that points to God’s existence: the orderliness of the universe against all entropy, the fact that humans agree right and wrong exist, the fact that there is a natural moral law, etc etc. It’s just not irrefutable proof. If you’re an atheist, why do you think no scientist in this film could explain where the first cell came from?
Ed, may I respectfully suggest that you update the wording in your post? There is no “absence of evidence” for the existence of God.
inviolet on April 18, 2008 at 5:59 PM
@ Spolitics on April 18, 2008 at 5:58 PM
The reason ID is crap is that the original examples of the theory have been proven wrong, and valid examples have not been produced. There is basically nothing to the theory.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Well first of all Yom is only in the old testament, and it is used 56 times. And in varying definitions:
Here is a synopsis from something laying around the internet:
right2bright on April 18, 2008 at 6:00 PM
and for those of you that think Darwinism is PURE science, with no EGO, or self promotion thrown in, please then explain to me this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
its a THEORY its’ UNPROVEN get with the program.
-Wasteland Man.
P.S. I still think some of the mechanics are sound I am just saying lets have a debate! Darwinism is NOT infallible! (neither is man made religion)
WastelandMan on April 18, 2008 at 6:00 PM
But they don’t want to be stuck the rest, such as getting all those animals on that boat.
exception on April 18, 2008 at 6:01 PM
That’s why the theory changes with new evidence.
Creation is stagnant. That’s its inherent flaw.
lorien1973 on April 18, 2008 at 6:02 PM
@ inviolet on April 18, 2008 at 5:59 PM
NONE of those point to God. You think they do because you want to. The fact that peanut butter and jelly taste good is NOT proof of God just because I say so. The fact that snow forms pretty crystals is NOT proof of God. The fact that the sunset is pretty is NOT proof of God. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for the existence of God. You said the universe is orderly? How about the trillions of asteroids and the stars which are not formed yet? That isn’t orderly at all. How about the fact that stars explode and consume the planets around them, and that there are giant black holes which consume anything which comes near them?
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 6:04 PM
The fact is later work specifically in DNA/RNA etc. have completely disproved evolution..but guess what..it’s still taught in schools and dissenters are still intimidated into silence.
Many of the people here believe that the censorship and lies of the “scientific” community is atrocious in regards to “global warming”.
Yet it seems some are still unable to see the sinister nature of the unscientific evolutionary dogma(state religion of secular humanism,) forced on these past few generations!
It’s the same thing but worse.
It is a satanic and state run “religion”…not a science.
SaintOlaf on April 18, 2008 at 6:04 PM
I was talking about belief in general and why beliefs are reasonable, and yes I include scientific beliefs. Do you think it’s reasonable for someone not as well versed in a scientific area of knowledge as you are, or who has not as much intelligence as you, to believe what the scientific experts agree about it?
This happens in courtrooms all across the country all the time, as a matter of fact. Jurors decide the fate of human beings daily based on the word of experts who give evidence on the stand. Not all the jurors understand “the process” and it is not necessary for them to. All due respect but just pointing out here that believing in the word of an expert, once the expertise has been established as reasonable, is a very rational thing to do.
inviolet on April 18, 2008 at 6:06 PM
We find plenty of fossils Kaptain…. we just don’t find transitional fossils….. explain that.
Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Yeah. Please link this ;)
lorien1973 on April 18, 2008 at 6:06 PM
This is why the Creationists have to rethink their theory. Here we have a case of “reverse” evolution.
Resorting to playing the “zombie” card, when he/she knows how offensive that is to something so precious.
But then when you are behind a computer in cyber and your id is unknown, you can say anything and not be held accountable.
The power you must feel, tell me, is it lonely in your aunts basement as you type these posts…wouldn’t you like to find a girl/boy to talk to, a real one without an air valve?
right2bright on April 18, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Red Pill on April 18, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Every fossil is a transitional fossil.
lorien1973 on April 18, 2008 at 6:08 PM
@ SaintOlaf on April 18, 2008 at 6:04 PM
Please link to this disproving of evolution and the conspiracy theory to still teach it. I would love to know which scientists are covering up and sacrificing everything they worked for to work on something proven false.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 6:08 PM
@ Red Pill on April 18, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Again, dont trust zombies, sorry.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Bacterial Flagellum: evolution’s nightmare and demise!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N09BIEzDlI
SaintOlaf on April 18, 2008 at 6:09 PM
That’s a good question, and I say they should not.
exception on April 18, 2008 at 6:10 PM
lorien1973 on April 18, 2008 at 6:02 PM
I have to disagree. there are many forms of the creation story. gilgamesh et al. and in such I think that the creation theory needs to be examined understood etc. those who think of it as static don’t seem to have a belief that God will reveal more to them if the get to Heaven. I personally IF (Big if LOL_) got to a heaven would be more curious about the process than I am now!
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on April 18, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Why does god hate island people?
lorien1973 on April 18, 2008 at 6:11 PM
@ right2bright on April 18, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Haha. Good post, made me smile. Of course you know I am joking, and in fact following definitions, Jesus could be considered a zombie. Tell Red Pill to stop quoting meaningless scripture to me and I will stop in the Jesus jokes.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 6:11 PM
@ SaintOlaf on April 18, 2008 at 6:09 PM
YOu didnt read the link i provided, that has been proven FALSE FALSE FALSE.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Well here it is, but you won’t read it, understand it, or you will find some other fault. But it is very well researched.
DNA/RNA
You’re welcome
right2bright on April 18, 2008 at 6:12 PM
I don’t know anything about it, so I’m not going to defend it. Like I said originally, when politics and science meet there always seem to be calls to silence one side. That said, there’s a difference between silencing something and simply not supporting it or furthering its cause (and you seem to be saying this is a case of the latter). However, what you said about ID is also true about Freud but they still teach him. My guess is they teach because they like his theories, whether they’re baseless or not.
Spolitics on April 18, 2008 at 6:13 PM
@ right2bright on April 18, 2008 at 6:12 PM
I took a look at the name of the site its from, and instantly I can assume its BS. Can you link me to a peer reviewed article? You know, you wouldnt link a study about the holocaust on a nazi website, because everyone understands their bias.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Really? Where are the ones that are transitional between dinosaurs and birds?
Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 6:14 PM
I didn’t read all the comments, so disregard if this is regurgitation, but Ed is correct in his description of micro-evolution (natural selection within species). But Macro-evolution, that’s what’s a myth, that other species suddenly mutated into others. Not proven at all. So it’s tough to just say, evolution. We need to refine that to the two types.
kirkill on April 18, 2008 at 6:14 PM
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 6:08 PM
I’m not going to debate with you muyoso…I have debated with you before and have found you to be insulting, dishonest,vulgar and bitter. No thanks.
But to answer your question.. you can read my posts to other,more civilized, people interested in honest discussion, not personal attacks.
SaintOlaf on April 18, 2008 at 6:14 PM
In my public high school AP Biology class, everything taught to me the whole year was science…with a two-week exception. Those two weeks started with a five minute intro where the teacher made the obligatory comment that some people believed in Creation, not evolution. After those five minutes, he spent the next two weeks indoctrinating us with not replicable science, but the taken-by-faith Theory of evolution.
All the ID crowd is asking for is an honest debate, and equal presentation, and let students make up their own mind. But free and open discussion and debate isn’t allowed in our government-funded public schools. (By the way, the Communist Manifesto talks about the importance of controlling public education)
Red Pill on April 18, 2008 at 6:14 PM
\
Nice try, but straw man and appeal to ridicule. Never said any of those things.
Yes, it is orderly. The fact that we, the progeny of so many others before us, are having this conversation via computer, in comfort in these rooms, in our respective cities, in our states, in this country, on this planet, in this solar system, is itself a demonstration of that.
You sound truly angry, just pointing that out. Please try to stay calm. Anyway, why don’t you answer the question that the scientists (the ones in the film anyway) couldn’t: How did the first cell come to be? Or, for example, what caused the Big Bang to happen? I’ve never gotten a serious answer to the latter question (and I’ve never heard the former asked in that wording) and am genuinely interested in your answers. Thanks.
inviolet on April 18, 2008 at 6:15 PM
The ones where you see dinosaurs with lighter (honeycombed) bones, feathers, larger eye sockets, larger brain cavities, etc. It’s not hard to find. Everything is always in transition.
lorien1973 on April 18, 2008 at 6:16 PM
Well…will just say, with respect, that our court system does not agree with you.
inviolet on April 18, 2008 at 6:16 PM
“Intelligent Design” is such a clever phrase. It so nearly legitimises the concept that that some great superbeing decided to build the universe out of nothing.
It brashly sweeps aside any concept of reason and logic, cause and effect, the why’s and how’s, with a clinical efficiency rarely found outside of Ikea.
Perhaps the inventor of the phrase “intelligent design” can come up with a similar rebranding for the flat earthers.
Off the top of my head, I’ve come up with “Linear terrestrialism”, but I’m sure he could come up with something better.
uptight on April 18, 2008 at 6:16 PM
explain the horse? transitional, explain the Veloci Raptor?
explain the arctic fox? explain the polar bear? all evolved from their respective ancestors and changed to fit their environment. mmmm
Kaptain Amerika on April 18, 2008 at 6:17 PM
I’ll disagree with you on this.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/superbugs.asp
I liked the movie, and agree with you that it is about academic freedom, first and foremost.
However, being a Christian, isn’t it important to heed what Christ said? He mentions a literal Adam, a literal Noah and the Flood, a literal Jonah, a literal Moses.
If Jesus said that they are real people, would he be lying about it or he just didn’t know? Or he must be an idiot like one of the atheists telling people who believe otherwise.
The problem with most Christians today is: not believing what God says. Instead, most end up spiritualizing what Jesus said.
Having said that, Christianity is the most tolerant of all faiths.
A lot of followers of Christ succumb to what “science” or philosophy or general piety of human kind dictates.
Why not be real for a change. If Christ is true, serve him.
If you do not believe him, so be it.
But do not modify Christianity to suit what is acceptable to human opinions.
It is my humble opinion, that most Christians who do not believe the creation account, do so, because they have never seriously studied the implications of evolution to God’s word and Christ’ declarations. As Dawkins have concluded that there is no god, and praised the “magnificence” of evolution because of its ability to explain away God in whom we all are accountable to, the evolutionary Christian embraces evolution because he did not give God the benefit of belief.
We cannot force somebody to believe in God: Even the Israelites with the great signs and wonders God did in their midst, they made a god out of their own imagination (the golden calf). Jesus also showed them all manner of miracles and wonders, but they imagined a different messiah and crucified him instead of accepting him.
maynila on April 18, 2008 at 6:18 PM
@ SaintOlaf on April 18, 2008 at 6:14 PM
toodalooo
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 6:18 PM
What your links show is actually why evolutionists are right and creationist have problems. These refer to past understandings of “useless DNA” and things that scientists weren’t sure of; but now they understand what it’s for. It’s a lot like our appendix. Doctors used to think it was was useless, but now they think it may help fight off infection.
Again, this is the problem. Science makes a theory and adapts it to new evidence. Thus, the theory of evolution constantly, uh, evolves. Creation says “this is how it is. Suck it up. There is no need for further discussion.”
lorien1973 on April 18, 2008 at 6:18 PM
@ Red Pill on April 18, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Once there is a SINGLE peer reviewed article published showing validity behind the theory of ID, then maybe we can talk about teaching it in schools.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Well if these exist they are the proof evolutionist have been seeking. I wonder why have haven’t brought them forward.
Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Shall we cook dinner for you, as well? If you were truly curious you could find out much of this information on your own.
Here’s polar bears for you:
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~candela/pbevol.html
lorien1973 on April 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM
That’s funny stuff.
exception on April 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM
I suggest you watch less 700 club and more discovery or read a book about these things. It’s out there and not difficult to find, either. It’s almost like “they” want you to know about it. See; it’s all part of the conspiracy.
lorien1973 on April 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM
@ inviolet on April 18, 2008 at 6:15 PM
I dont have those answers. I know what you are trying to do. Religion does have answers to those questions. Fine. But I can just make up answers to those questions just like anyone else, its just that I dont want to make a story about our existence, i want the truth.
muyoso on April 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM
How about:
My collie says:
Do you suppose that God was trying to give us a hint all along?
Maybe our collective consciousness simply shifts it’s way through the universe’s static configuration space. No beginning and no end. Maybe that’s what He meant when He said “I am the Alpha and the Omega” (it’s in the book of Revelation).
My collie says:
So are the evolutionists. They are incapable of performing a “control experiment.” Where I come from, that doesn’t even qualify as science.
CyberCipher on April 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM
Not true.
Every fossil falls into 1 of 2 categories:
1) Species that can still be found today
2) Species that is now extinct
Since the dawn of creation, we have only lost DNA (through extinction) and have not gained any DNA.
Dinosaurs were there at creation, and co-existed with man. Take a long look at the Leviathan in Job 41.
Red Pill on April 18, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Good point, IMHO some bible literalists are just as closed minded as those that completley dismiss the possibility of ID. Who’s to say how long a second, minute, hour, day, or years is where God dwells?
A second could be one of our earth years, a day could be a million or billion earth years, etc.
I record all those shows on the science channels, it drives my girlfriend crazy but I love them! There was a recent one on string theory, parallel universes, another dimension, etc. and the debate among the scientific community on which theory was right. As it turns out (so far) they are both right and in fact complement each other. String theory didn’t work (mathematically) but when the scientists calculated string theory with the parallel universe/additional dimension theory it worked mathematically.
There is so much we don’t understand and so much more we have to learn, we are mere infants in the cosmos for sure.
I think the point of this movie is if we’re ever going to continue to evolve as a race and move forward we have to be open to any possibility, including other dimensions, parallel universes, a higher being (God) etc. and by stifling or suppressing other theories it will stunt our growth.
Here’s a poem that was written to me when I asked the following question: “Is there such thing as God?”
Nature:
“As I sit alone in the park viewing the luscious green of the hillsides I can’t help but remember a remark I heard not long ago.”
(The remark being my question about the existence of God).
“Oh how dark they were, I wish I could share with them the view I have and explain to them our balance of nature which they can’t control so they don’t understand…”
Liberty or Death on April 18, 2008 at 6:21 PM
I’m pretty sure that this movie is trying to explain why you won’t find any articles like that - they could be out there, but they’re being supressed.
the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 24 »