Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Expelled - from Chrisitianity Forum


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 127 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 1, 2008 8:09:44 PM PDT
Nate says:
Hey, this is also on the Christianity Forum. I thought it might be of interest here also. Its a copy/paste job. Sorry if anyone considers it spam.

"So there's a movie coming out - a documentary by Ben Stein called
"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." Its prett good. I think it comes out on the 18th (April). I recommend.

Its about the intersection of neo-Darwinism and ID. Apparenly proponents from one side are trying to silence and discredit the voice of the other side. Its very interesting. It touches about as much on first ammendment as it does the ID/Darwin debate.

There's a trailer on YouTube. It comes out the 18th I think. Just wanted to let people know.

- Nate "

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 1, 2008 8:11:05 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Oct 13, 2008 9:46:43 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 1, 2008 9:09:56 PM PDT
IFeelFree says:
The film is nothing more than "Intelligent Design" propaganda. They can't win in the courts or within scientific circles, so they're trying to win converts among the uninformed public.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 6:47:25 AM PDT
Nate says:
Its not ID propaganda. It touches on ID. And it touches on Darwinism. Scientists like Richard Dawkins get their say. Its mostly about how Darwinism affects society - first of all in the way that scientists who aren't Darwinist are discriminated against heavily, and secondly how Darwinism logically leads to things like Nazi Germany's holocaust. It really says that their are other viewpoints that get squashed and arent even considered. Its about how Darwinists dont allow an open discussion on Darwinism. It isn't to be questioned.

You seem arrogant with your "uninformed public" remark. You can try to explain if you want, but you sound like you want it to look like anyone who can believe in ID is part of the "uninformed public."

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 7:04:38 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 2, 2008 7:08:18 AM PDT
timothy says:
You are absolutely right, Nate. Opposing viewpoints do get squashed...do you know why? Because they don't have the evidence to back up their opposing viewpoints. In the scientific world you only get to speak when you have the evidence to back up your assertions. That's why ID proponents get their viewpoints squashed. We'll consider ID, when and only when you bring some credible evidence to the table.

Stop calling it darwinism...it's evolution. Evolution is, to date, the best and most thorough explanation to the diversity of life on this planet. If something comes along that does a better job, then evolution will be yesterday's news and the new theory will be the accepted theory. All lines of scientific exploration agree that evolution happens, all evidence converges to the point that evolution happens. The best part? They got there independent of each other.

The uninformed public remark is actually true. Have you read at least one book on evolution? I'm not being snarky, I'm being serious. If you have, then you know more about evolution than probably 90% of the US population. The ID proponents do a nice (read:underhanded) job of spreading lies about evolution. That whole monkey to man picture is the best, it is a dishonest portrayal of evolution yet if you ask the average person about evolution, that's what they talk about. Instead of trying to poke holes in evolution (even the most ardent proponents of evolution will admit there are holes), why don't IDers bring evidence to the table that ID actually happened. The question I have is if evolution is wrong, does that make ID right? Even if evolution is proved false, there still needs to be evidence for another explanation.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 7:19:05 AM PDT
Ariex says:
Nate says: "Its not ID propaganda. ... first of all in the way that scientists who aren't Darwinist are discriminated against heavily, and secondly how Darwinism logically leads to things like Nazi Germany's holocaust."

Ariex: Hmmm. Discrimination, eh? Kinda like the way flat earthers are discriminated against, or geocentrists, perhaps? And how does understanding how life evolved lead to things like the holocaust? The lessons of history show that religion motivates things like that, not science. The reason the Jews were so hated is because Christian leaders inflamed hatred of the "Christ killers" in order to increase fear in their followers, fear being one of the twin pillars of religious belief (Fear and guilt).

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 7:29:56 AM PDT
Nate says:
If "even the most ardent proponents of evolution will admit there are holes," then why do they discriminate against professors and scientists who bring up these holes? Why do they discriminate against other views?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 7:31:50 AM PDT
Nate says:
"And how does understanding how life evolved lead to things like the holocaust?"

If you want to know this, you'll have to watch the movie.

Actually it has to do with the reasoning that if everything is an accident, then there is no value in life. Its quite logical.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 7:46:52 AM PDT
Actually, ID has won a court case in Arkansas when I was a kid...but no one seems to remember that.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 7:58:10 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 2, 2008 8:10:50 AM PDT
Nate says: "even the most ardent proponents of evolution will admit there are holes," then why do they discriminate against professors and scientists who bring up these holes?

Well, Nate - We refer to those holes as "gaps" in our scientific knowledge. At one time the "gaps" were greater than the entire body of knowledge. Over time, thanks to scientific research, testing and peer review many, but certainly not all, of the gaps have been eliminated. The problem with ID/creationism is it falls back on the ancient idea of filling in the gaps with an untestable, supernatural explanation. Real scientists (even the religious ones) understand that progress is impossible if you simply say "we don't see how that works... it must be the hand of god that did it."
Until the ID movement comes up with some hard evidence of a designer and his/her/its works (and Behe's bacterial flagella argument didn't stand up to scrutiny) and offers up a unifying ID theory that is testable, providing hard evidence that falsifies evolution - ID will continue to be ridiculed and rejected in the courts as legitimate science. ID scientists, however sincere, who bring up the subject of "holes" have offered no verifiable alternative, just theological assertions to fill them in. It is not science, but merely an extension of the old "god in the gaps" logic that cannot produce new information or greater understanding. Scientists discriminate against ID theorists because they demand a "rule change" that includes supernatural causation, without proof. Sorry Nate, but that's a science killer. You or I might argue for any untestable, supernatural explanation (like gravity is actually invisible fairy glue) and demand equal time. We shouldn't be surprised if we are laughed at by physicists.
You shouldn't be surprised that Ben Stein's propaganda film which argues (to the non-scientific public) that a fundamental "rule change" is needed in biological science will not be welcomed by the scientific community or that by mixing footage of Nazi atrocities with scientists in the lab (suggesting mainsteam academics are also jack-booted thugs) might cause a backlash when ID proponents attempt to gain credibility in academia.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 8:26:02 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 1, 2008 3:45:31 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 8:26:58 AM PDT
C. Blanchard says:
Nate:

"If "even the most ardent proponents of evolution will admit there are holes," then why do they discriminate against professors and scientists who bring up these holes? Why do they discriminate against other views?"

These other views are not science. Science makes hypotheses and tests them. ID makes hypotheses and then claims that any alternative is impossible, so they must be right by default. It's not that alternative views are being discriminated against, it's that sloppy thinking and pseudo-science are being weeded out. It's not discrimination, it's quality control.

"Actually it has to do with the reasoning that if everything is an accident, then there is no value in life. Its quite logical."

No, it's the opposite of logic. Inferring a lack of value based on a lack of a deity who awards value is a logical fallacy. And the fact that Hitler misunderstands evolutionary theory to rationalize the sort of racism that existed long before has no bearing on the theory's scientific validity.

And, more importantly, biological evolution isn't about everything being an "accident"; it is very specifically about how existing life develops and diversifies over time. If you want to make an argument against atheism or naturalism based on the premise you stated above, be my guest...but don't pull the bait-and-switch tactic of attacking evolution because you dislike atheism. Evolution is not atheism and does not require atheism. Yes, it requires methodological naturalism, but so does all legitimate science, and if you have a problem with that, you may want to do a bit of research on exactly what science is.

"Scientists like Richard Dawkins get their say."

The scientists in the movie were interviewed under false pretenses (and, I'd wager, their remarks were probably heavily edited). And at least one of them was denied entry to an advance screening, despite being thanked in the film's credits, and despite the whole film's theme ostensibly being the openness of the marketplace of ideas and the free exchange of thought. Hypocrisy?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 8:28:49 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 1, 2008 3:45:29 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 8:31:28 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 1, 2008 3:45:32 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 8:36:02 AM PDT
Nate: "Actually it has to do with the reasoning that if everything is an accident, then there is no value in life. Its quite logical."

V: Just by coincidence you discover a treasure trove of rare gems and coins in your backyard. Just because it happened by accident, it has no value, so pass it along to me, I'll take care of it for you.

Another poor logical point is how Stein points to how "lives" of scientists are ruined in the scientific community as if they are singled out for their religious beliefs. The fact is that they are more often singled out for illogical thinking alone. The supporters of the evolutionary chance idea are only looking at the evidence. If someone sees a beautiful pattern and claims that chance could not make it, they must show evidence that chance was NOT involved. Creation has NEVER, never been shown to be anything but chance. IDers have not shown a scrap of "non-chance" evidence--only blithering belief and faith that should remain in church--not in science, unless they provide actual evidence that puts it in science!!!

But, I saw Stein's premise and it is, in a nutshell:
ID must be true because its supporters are persecuted. So then: The Jews are chosen because they are/were persecuted. So then: The Mormons are the true followers of God because they are/were persecuted. The followers of Bahai are persecuted, so their religion is true. You are not persecuted, therefore your religion is sheepdip. Do you think these are logical arguments?

The same poor logic could be used to say that ALL Christians obey authority without thinking for themselves and goose step for any tyrant who wants to take over the world. No one makes a more brave and loyal killer of "evil" enemies in the world. (Remember how Bush insisted that ALL Iranians were EVIL--rather than disagreeing with policy of the regime in power? That's how the terrorists indoctrinate their minions by telling them ALL Americans are evil and foes.)

You can believe what you want! But don't expect your government to force "faith" into the science classroom without a scrap of scientific evidence! It's stupidity!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 8:37:31 AM PDT
"Scientists like Richard Dawkins get their say."

Many of those interviewed were lied to as to what they were being interviewed for. - http://mattcbr.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/pz-myers-expelled-again-expelled-lies-again/

Science welcomes questions... but there is a difference between "opinion" and "informed opinion."

Even if it were true that evolutionary theory (you do know that it's been 150 years since Darwin proposed his ideas, right?) "logically leads to things like Nazi Germany's holocaust" (it doesn't), it does not follow that evolutionary theory should be discarded, or is somehow discredited on that basis.

And yes, I'd say that the majority of the public *is* ill-informed concerning science in general, and evolutionary theory in particular.

This has all been discussed in the Science forum... why bring it here, or the Christianity forum, for that matter?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 8:47:35 AM PDT
There is an interesting and undeniable link between the atrocities committed in the name of nazism and communism with their militant political philosophies supported by the naturalistic "struggle" theme found in evolution. It is not only appropriate but prudent to ask if what they were doing (the murder of millions for political expediency in the presence of an ethical vacuum) was consistent with their beliefs and justified based on their world view. I don't understand why this important philosophical aspect of the 20th century's modern age goes untouched on in history classes today. I'm glad Ben Stien is bringing attention to it.

Perhaps he will also touch on the fact that science has become synonymous with naturalism when they are clearly two different things. I find the Lewontin quote honest and instructive:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of it's constructs, in spite of it's failure to fulfill many of it's extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, BECAUSE WE HAVE A PRIOR COMMITMENT, A COMMITMENT TO MATERIALISM. IT IS NOT THAT THE METHODS AND INSTITUTIONS OF SCIENCE SOMEHOW COMPEL US TO ACCEPT A MATERIAL EXPLANATION OF THE PHENOMENAL WORLD, BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, THAT WE ARE FORCED BY OUR A PRIORI ADHERENCE TO MATERIAL CAUSES TO CREATE AN APPARATUS OF INVESTIGATION AND A SET OF CONCEPTS THAT PRODUCE MATERIAL EXPLANATIONS, NO MATTER HOW COUNTER INTUITIVE, NO MATTER HOW MYSTIFYING TO THE UNINITIATED. MOREOVER, THAT MATERIALISM IS AN ABSOLUTE, FOR WE CAN NOT ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR.

Thank you for your honesty and courage Ben Stein- and gird your loins, there's a storm coming your way, lol!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 8:51:05 AM PDT
LOL...what exactly do you know about Arkansas?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 8:51:39 AM PDT
A. Campbell says:
tmj120 wrote: >>Because they don't have the evidence to back up their opposing viewpoints.<<

YES WE DO! There is as much evidence for ID as there is for the fact that women descended from a man's rib and a virgin girl gave birth. For proof, let me point you out to the following verses.......

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 9:02:26 AM PDT
*giggle*

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 9:06:54 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 2, 2008 9:08:23 AM PDT
Now, I will talk about the truth...a court case in Arkansas called: Epperson vs. Arkansas went to the Supreme Court. As a result of this Supreme Court decision, states were forbidden to ban the teaching of evolution, even in public schools, and left it up to the states to decided the curriculum.

But then, the pendulum flipped...where creation science was not being taught...so then there is another Arkansas court case: McLean vs. Arkansas. In the end of this one, where creation science could not be refuted by evolution scientist, my state decided a balance of evolution and creation science should be taught in public schools.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 9:09:00 AM PDT
Interesting? Not really. Undeniable? Hardly.

Evolutionary theory is a theory of how populations of living things change over time. There is no moral component to that... the theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. It likewise does not require nor rule out any particular moral or ethical framework.

And, even if what you say is true, evolutionary theory reflects aspects of reality... and it makes no sense at all for us to be in denial of reality just because we find the implications of that reality unpleasant.

You're not just barking up the wrong tree... you're in the wrong forest.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 9:10:33 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Oct 13, 2008 9:46:32 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 9:16:44 AM PDT
McClean vs. Arkansas: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html

From the link:

"The Court closes this opinion with a thought expressed eloquently by the great Justice Frankfurter:

We renew our conviction that "we have stake the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion." Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. at 59. If nowhere else, in the relation between Church and State, "good fences make good neighbors." [McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 232 (1948)]

An injunction will be entered permanently prohibiting enforcement of Act 590.

It is ordered this January 5, 1982.

-- William R. Overton in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division"

Act 590 - permanent injunction

What did your State decide, again?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2008 9:22:56 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 2, 2008 9:26:57 AM PDT
Did you insult me or did 7L about Arkansas?

But the correct one of course...permanent injunction :)...yep I wrote that wrong...It is my state that made a permanent injuction :)
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  127
Initial post:  Apr 1, 2008
Latest post:  Jul 24, 2008

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions