Variety is reporting that the filmmakers behind Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a new anti-Darwinism pro-Intelligent Design documentary starring Ben Stein, have stepped up their film’s marketing to coincide with its timely April release (around the same time that Bill Maher’s pro-agnostic doc Religulous opens internationally). Motive Entertainment, the marketing company that helped make The Passion of the Christ and The Chronicles of Narnia box office hits, was recently hired to “spread the [film's] gospel.” Variety’s words.
The “super trailer” below for Stein’s film makes the argument that scientists are being quietly fired and silenced if and when they express religious beliefs and that free speech issues are increasingly relevant to this topic as America’s culture/media climate becomes increasingly secular. Stein even warns viewers that if they watch the film they might lose friends or their job. Now the latter? That’s a bold statement (sue!), but the friends/reputation thing? I don’t think that’s as much a stretch, as (non)religion is one of the Oughts big polemics, especially for young people, alongside, like, Arcade Fire/Selling Out/Iraq/Wayfarers/Obama. I do think it’s odd how many reviews lacked the balls to dive into the atheistic viewpoint that is There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson’s flick vitriolically says god is a superstition, if ya didn’t know.) And then there’s the Left Behind shades to M. Knight Shyamalan’s The Happening (and yes, they are there).
So who wins here? Bill Maher and Larry Charles’s Religulous or Expelled’s “anti-evolution think tank”-backers the Discovery Institute and Ben Stein, who says he doesn’t care if his $3.5 million doc makes money, he just wants to impact policy?
Discuss: Will you see both documentaries to get “balance,” only the one that fits your beliefs, or neither (i.e. don’t care, will contribute ticket money to alcohol)?
February 18th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I used to think Ben Stein was smart.
Bill Mahar + Larry Charles talking sense about religion? Sign me up.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Just because you disagree with Ben Stein’s belief, doesn’t mean he lacks intelligent. Matter of fact(and I’m not saying you are) but you make yourself look rather ignorant making statments such as that.
I wouldn’t say this film is even anti-evolution, just pro free speech. People should have a right to believe in what they want to, without looking frowned upon because Richard Darwin disagrees with it.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
There were so many things wrong with that trailer I hardly know what to say. I used to respect Ben Stein as someone sensible and intelligent among the Conservative movement. Now, to hear him spout the same uninformed rhetoric that has been going around for decades, it makes me sad.
Two things:
1. It is pure ignorance to suggest that the religious in this country (or around the world) are the ones being persecuted. Please. There are more of them than there are atheists. Otherwise, Creationism wouldn’t be in the public spotlight.
2. Just for those who might be confused: evolution and natural selection are the polar opposite of random chance. Each step in the evolutionary ladder is brought about by infinitesimally small adaptations to the environment.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Dude, both are persecuted by extremist. People who force evolution down peoples throats are just as bad as christians who wrongly damn the gays to hell.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Since when has Ben Stein been into Intelligent Design? I always thought he would be a big Darwinist.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
“Amen” Jacobi.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
um, amen jacobi? he clearly stated the ways that creationists are looked down upon…he is simply saying they should be able to speak their opinions and not be fired for it…as, if you were listening, they were.
Its so funny that people can mock Christians for being so closeminded, but when it comes to Christianity there can be some people that can be closeminded. Christians arent all closeminded bigots, but most are treated as such.
I completely respect someone who believes in evolution, to me a Creator just makes more sense and I have faith in that. Im not judging anyone, I just ask you(Jacobi) can do the same.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
and for the record…I will most definitely see both of these as I like Bill Maher and Ben Stein, and I am a Christian but open minded enough to not be offended by someone elses views and actually interested in hearing them.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
@J: Nobody is shoving evolution down peoples throats. Evolution is a well respected scientific theory which is taught as part of a complete biology curriculum. In the biology community evolution is taken as better than fact.
This is not a religious issues. It’s an economics issue. Teach our kids real science or teach them Chinese. Over the next century the jobs will be in biotech. If our kids aren’t taught about DNA they will be worthless in the marketplace.
Europe, China, India, Canada, they are all making huge strides in biotech while we fall behind because of insanity like this.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Can’t watch Expelled. It’s intellectually dishonest. Period.
@Michael Evans - No. You’re wrong. There are beliefs that people should ridicule. If we believed what we want, then I would be a billionaire and people would have to take that on faith, regardless of the fact that I didn’t have physical form of money.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
People can certainly believe what they like, and as disappointing as Ben Stein being against prevailing science is…its also not new.
My issue with this trailer is more how it is presented.
This trailer seems to suggest that the documentary will be rather silly and useless.
Mostly because from this trailer it seems that it will focus on a couple profs. who got fired and their one sided arguments….combined with rather unintelligent arguments and “facts” about Darwin’s theories.
Almost all of the “facts” presented about Darwin’s theories were inaccurately presented and thus the whole argument of the films in null.
You cannot expect to make a respected argument in a film when you blatantly one side the facts and you blatantly get the opposing arguments facts wrong. So even if this movie was Penguins vs Lions…the fact that one sides views are mis-represented makes this film worthless….and that is the main reason i am disappointed with Ben. Though I knew he was pro-ID, I thought he would at least have enough respect for science and his viewers to present the evolutionary argument fairly and let the viewer decided from all the real facts.
Sum it all up: Mostly likely a worthless movie that does nothing helpful for either side.
As for Bills Book thing: I could care less because Bill is kinda a jackass and will probably just be insulting to try to get shock laughs like he usually does. Even if he does get some interesting facts and logic…still probably be stupid.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
“There are beliefs that people should ridicule”
If I agreed with that then I’d still be living in a nation with water fountains that said “whites only”
People have rights to their beliefs as well as their expressions. You don’t have to agree with them, but if they’re getting the job done logic demands respect. You have as much right to NOT view as they have to make something. Bill Mahr, Ben Stein or otherwise.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
And I don’t get the whole trailer-blackboard thing…does the Janitor work for the Darwin-Man or something???? The Janitor probably has to erase everything on the board….despite what it says and Ben just made it harder for that guy to get through his shift!….confused.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
its just a metaphor for free speech being erased, the fact that he is a janitor has nothing to do with it.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I do agree that he isn’t giving evolution a fair analysis as he is creation….if he does that in the film it is what we like to call propaghanda, which doesnt deter me from seeing it as Im sure Mahers film will most definitely be one sided and be prophaganda I am just very interested in both sides and opinions.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Michael Evans said: “I wouldn’t say this film is even anti-evolution.”
I would. It’s anti-evolution, anti-biology, anti-science, anti-civilization, and most of all anti-intelligence. It appears to be a sequel to Coral Ridge Ministries’ “Darwin To Hitler” propaganda film - and just as truthful.
Who knows - maybe “Expelled” will go down in history with “Birth of a Nation” and “Triumph of the Will.”
February 18th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I would like to see both, but I doubt either will be released anywhere near where I live. I’ll probably have to download both when they become available online, which may not be until their DVD’s are pressed since I doubt there will be Screeners available.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
After a conversation with Michael Behe (the big proponent of ID) I decided to read ‘The Design Of Life’ which is the textbook of ID. I read the whole thing and gave it a fair shake, but it was just a tirade against evolution.
There really is no such thing as ‘Intelligent Design theory’. It’s a bunch of critiques of evolution, many of which contradict each other. With each chapter ending with ‘ID fixes these problems’ but it never says how.
In particular I was looking for an answer to this question; by what criteria do you decide what is designed and what is evolved. Turns out that the answer is… by the complexity of the statement used to describe it. I kid you not. The answer is that if it takes a lot of words to describe the thing, it’s designed by an ‘intelligent agency’. (pg. 168-169 “The Design of Life”)
February 18th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
JDH wisely deduced: “…I decided to read ‘The Design Of Life’ which is the textbook of ID. I read the whole thing and gave it a fair shake, but it was just a tirade against evolution.”
That’s true - not only for the book, but for all of intelligent design creationism, which is simply the logical fallacies “argument from ignorance” (”I’m too ignorant to understand how this could have happened, therefore Goddidit.”) and “argument from personal incredulity” (”In my personal opinion, this is so unlikely or unbelievable that it can’t be true.”) That’s all that intelligent design creationism says: “Evolution can’t be true, therefore intelligent design creationism is true.” - which is of course wrong.
JDH’s wisdom continued: “There really is no such thing as ‘Intelligent Design theory.’” Again, that’s true. After the 1987 US Supreme Court decision saying the bogus “creation science” couldn’t be taught in public school, Philip Johnson and others cafefully calculated how to remove any mention of God / Genesis / Noah and everything “religious” from creationism…that’s how intelligent design creationism came to exist (no kidding). Johnson has recently complained that the “scientists” they have hired to implement their religious obfuscation haven’t been to come up with any actual actual theory.
(If anybody’s really interested, read Barbara Forrest’s paper, “Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals,” available at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf )
February 18th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
It’s like this. There are thousands of data points, using both direct and indirect observation, that naturak selection has formed the process of evolution since the beginnings of life on Earth. There isn’t a single shred of evidence for Intelligent Design, which is Creationism trying to play dressup in a lab coat. Ben Stein is free to spend his time and money trying to say otherwise, just as he’s free to believe he’s a purple elephant. But he’s shooting his last bit of credibility in the foot, except among the sad people who also share his purple elephant delusion. You can believe in Christ without buying into bad science and dumb rhetoric. Stein, it appears, cannot. Spend the ticket money on beer.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I’ll probably see both so as to know both sides, but Bill Maher is just reaaallly annoying.
I really really hate all this ‘Science Vs. Religion’ stuff for two reasons: one is that by ‘Religion’ everyone always means Christianity and rarely bothers PROPERLY researching other ones like Islam, and the other is that they’re not two totally opposite things. Religion is the why, science is the how.
Of course the Qur’an, revealed 1400 years ago, isn’t full of formulas - it’s a guide on how to live life and talks about what we would call “scientific facts” in words [such as the development of a fetus, the shape of the Earth, and hundreds of other things].
At the same time, a random guy with a PhD doesn’t know the perfect way to live life, but can deliver the exact workings of how a fetus DOES develop. Neither is wrong, they simply are concerned with different aspects.
Religion, and I can only speak of Islam since I’ve only ever been Muslim, doesn’t dispute ANY scientific fact. Some theories, which I do understand are pretty solid, but facts all check out
A little something to think about:
” Abu Haneefah was asked to participate in a debate with some atheists. On the appointed date and time of the debate, the atheists arrived along with a great number of people attending the debate. Abu Haneefah was nowhere to be seen, they waited and waited and eventually one of the atheists announced, to the cheers of the atheists, that atheism was victorious as Abu Haneefah did not show out of fear of being defeated. Just then Abu Haneefah shows up and upon being asked why he was late he responded.
“I missed the ferry crossing the river, so while I was waiting for the next one, branches of trees started coming together all of a sudden, along with ropes, nails and other materials. I watched as they came together to form a fully functional ship. I boarded it and it took me, all on its own, to the other side. It then went on a trip across the oceans to trade some of its goods all on its own.â€
Upon hearing this, the atheists said:
“This man is mad, no one can say such a thing except a mad man, a ship made itself!â€
Abu Haneefah responded:
“The heavens and earth and the countless creatures within them that are in need of direction, all this without a maker!â€
February 18th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
@Paul says: ‘Johnson has recently complained that the “scientists†they have hired to implement their religious obfuscation haven’t been to come up with any actual actual theory.’ I can certainly see the difficulty they have, equations tend to break down when you invoke the ‘God did it’ backdoor.
One of the reasons I read the ID book was that they said ID was an exciting new field of research. Which turned out to be complete baloney. They’ve been harping on the ‘bacterial flagellum’ argument for years, even though it’s been disproved.
We should also mention that in order for ID to be considered science the definition of science itself needs to be bent to including the supernatural. According to Behe’s own testimony in the Dover case under this new definition Astrology would be a science eligible for teaching in the classroom. In addition to that, divination, palm reading, sayances, etc.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Darwinistic evolution. Is this the same Darwin whose only degree was in theology? The same Darwin whose origin theory violates the scienific law of biogenesis - life can only come from life? The same racist Darwin who claimed the black man would eventually be superseded by the whites?
This is the guy the majority of you are defending? Have you read his books? Keep learning…
February 18th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
im just wondering why so many of you are considering Expelled propaghanda but saying nothing about religulous…just because it may hold you beliefs doesnt make it any less propaghanda.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
I watched as they came together to form a fully functional ship. I boarded it and it took me, all on its own, to the other side. It then went on a trip across the oceans to trade some of its goods all on its own.â€
Upon hearing this, the atheists said:
“This man is mad, no one can say such a thing except a mad man, a ship made itself!â€
Abu Haneefah responded:
“The heavens and earth and the countless creatures within them that are in need of direction, all this without a maker!â€
And this has what to do with anything?
Is this supposed to be some sort of analogy of the fallacious nature of natural selection? All it shows is a gross misunderstanding of basic biological precepts.
Go read a science book.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
I’ll be happy to watch both documentaries because, even though I am a Christian, I am open minded enough see both sides of the issue. I challenge you to do the same.
To me, the argument basically boils down to believing in the “recorded words” of a half-way mythological demigod named Moses vs. the majority of the scientific community today. As a Christian, I am bound by faith to believe in intelligent design, even though the world may rise against me. But, as a Christian, I also must be understanding towards the ever pressing, ever relevant question of “Why is there so little science in the Bible?”
The Jewish Tanakh, which the modern Christian Old Testament is derived from, was written by many writers in the pre-scientific world of tribal writers, particularly Moses. He is the author of Genesis which tells the tale of the beginning of the earth. How would this Moses, who existed many many generations from the said “beginning” of the world, be able to recount the tale exactly as it happened? It is improbable firstly, and this is to all the Christians out there, because no one was with God except for himself when he created the world. How then could one possibly have observed the formation of the earth if they, people, had not even been created yet? Secondly, oral traditions of storytelling of the said “creation” could not possibly have carried the said story accurately for thousands of years and hundreds of generations, not to mention a cataclysmic flood. Your own recollection of one event or joke or memory grows fainter as the days go by. The people who told Moses of the creation would have had to ALL (since the beginning) had perfect memories. This is unlikely. Thirdly, and this is for the people who profess a belief in evolution, God couldn’t have created the world because Science and Man (the NEW deities) tell us otherwise.
Science is not present in the Bible because the culture and society that wrote the first half of the Bible was about as advanced as five year olds, scientifically of course. To them, science consisted of metal-working, star gazing, and the tent constructing-whatever. For them, it WAS scientific for someone to tell them that an omniscient deity created the world. It would be as if someone today discovered the God particle. Life changing for the semi-intelligent tribes people, especially if the “scientific” leader would display his knowledge by predicting a miraculous lunar eclipse or employing some sort of natural occurrence to awe the crowds into submission. They had no knowledge of gravity, of space, atoms, molecules, DNA strands, and all that other stuff. It was simpler, and easier just to explain their own existence away to the omniscient deity.
It is improbable, and unintelligent for someone today to believe so intensely in the spooky and childish mythology granted to us through the divine memory of Moses.
Personally, I reject the belief that in order to believe in God you have to reject intelligence. And, if it is true that in order to believe in God you have to wander the earth with a blindfold over your eyes, then I reject God and I reject the principles that people have grounded their faith upon. I will not be led like a sheep through the world, dimwitted and slow, following whichever way the “crowd” goes. I instead choose to follow the path made of real, concrete science.
Science rules, stay in school.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Wow Daniel, you’re as sneaky as they come. Start out professing to be Christian and then undermine the very foundations of Christianity in your lengthy post.
Oral tradition back then was far different than someone telling a story today. There was no wide availability of easy ways to record things on paper (or stone, for that matter). Oral tradition and the passing of history from one generation to the next was an incredibly detailed and serious endeavor, with (I’m sure) agonizing repetition until the receiver who would become the “deliverer” got it down exactly to down to the most minute detail.
And your eyewitness argument to creation is ludicrous, as what is in the bible is (if you’re truly Christian) the word of God given to man for recording for posterity. The argument that anything that came before Moses is invalid because he “wasn’t there” is ludicrous coming from a supposedly self proclaimed Christian.
I struggle with this whole debate, but I laugh out loud at people who can’t possibly imagine an Apple Ipod spontaneously coming into being given billions of years of raw material laying around, whipped up by wind or whatever, but the infinitely more complex machinery of the living being a case of stuff just falling into place.
Why the hell does life exist at ALL?
To me this is all like the HAL 9000 arguing that it just sprang into being and telling Dr. Chandra that he’s a fool for saying he created it.
Vic
February 18th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
@Screen Rant: Evolutionary theory does not posit that things simply ‘falling into place’ or being created in any random process. Evolution is not random.
Your defense of oral tradition is interesting. Have you ever played the ‘telephone game’ experiment in school? It clearly demonstrates how a concept can be skewed from person to person in just a few steps.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
@Screen Rant: You missed my point entirely. I profess to be a Christian, yes, but that leaves me a wide margin to explore my own personal beliefs in. What I personally disagree with is the notion that Christians today should accept a belief transmitted to us through an unreliable and unacceptable source of accuracy: oral storytelling, which, unfortunately for you, is not based upon memorizing lengthy passages and reciting them agonizingly, but rather is founded upon the principle of improvisation. Furthermore, writing was developed centuries before the existence of Moses and his epic. Writing was a very common practice when Moses was alive. But that is not my point. My point is arguing against Moses’ source: oral tradition, is inaccurate by the standards of many historians.
Science is based upon, let me hear you class, “Observation”. What we cannot observe, we can only theorize about. But a theory that lacks any scientific background or basis is nothing more than fiction.
Your point brings me back to my point of Christianity: a wide range of beliefs. If the Bible is the direct word of God, why then does God authorize polygamy, slavery, and sexism? (Exodus 21:10/1 Kings 11:3, Exodus 21:2-6, 1 Timothy 2:11-15). Whenever I read the Bible, I do not see a picture of God; rather, I see a picture of mistakes and human errors cumulated underneath the banner of “Truth”, held by the hands of Extremism, followed by the hordes of the self-righteous.
If Christians today truly believed that the Bible was written by God and given to man, polygamy, slavery, and sexism towards women would all still be common legal practices in America and other “Christian” nations.
Unfortunately, the majority of Christians, like most people, fail to recognize their own errors. They choose to ignore and turn a blind eye to the inaccuracies that riddle the Bible instead of finding the mistakes and fixing them. It is a religion of ignorance, and I have every right to say that because I have been a part of the ignorance for more than 11 years.
As a society, we can choose to make fun of each other, like Bill Maher is attempting to do; or we can choose to argue our on points, like Ben Stein is attempting. The point is that no one has all of the answers, and it is up to all of us to find our own solution to the question: faith or facts.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Question for an ID believer: Humans share 99.90% of our genome with the great apes. The textbook of ID (”The Design Of Life”) explains this by saying it’s completely coincidental. Do you agree with this hypothesis?
February 19th, 2008 at 12:28 am
To me Darwin and the Intelligent Design debates are for all intensive purposes unrelated. Darwin’s theory does not describe or encompass the origins of life, only how selection forces in the environment governed it’s progression once in existence. Intelligent design claims that life started by an intelligent entity, something which isn’t accounted for in The Origin of Species.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:55 am
The facts are these: ID is not science, it is disingenuous theological rhetoric, plain and simple. Don’t believe me? Try to find any papers published in any reputable (note I said REPUTABLE) peer-reviewed science journal on ID. It will be a challenge. Amongst scientists there is NO controversy - evolution is a robust accepted theory. Without it most of what we now know about biology and genetics would make no sense at all.
If IDers want to teach their fuzzy hypothesis in a theology or comparative religion class that’s fine. But it has no more place in a science class than the Cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Chariots of the Gods, or the Holy Order of the Ranting Animator.
I’ll accept ID/creationism in public school science classes the day churches let us start teaching evolution in Sunday school!
Try Talkorigins.org for more excellent info on evolution and its nitwit detractors (Yeah, you heard me Mike Huckabee!)
February 19th, 2008 at 3:22 am
I’m always amazed when generally smart people ignore vast amounts of evidence in favor of their faith.
Faith is cool and all, but people used to have faith that the earth was flat. That the sun revolved around the earth. That lightning was the gods fighting or humping up in the sky.
How silly will you all look in a couple thousand years when the Christian God has gone the way of Thor and all the other myths.
While I don’t have any interesting in seeing either movie, I WOULD like to see an actual case made for Intelligent Design’s scientific merit. It might be hard for the believers to make such an argument, though, since their entire claim is based on an invisible magician.
Science : Matter :: Invisible Magicians : Antimatter
Click for my favorite ID bumper sticker
February 19th, 2008 at 7:45 am
JDH,
You obviously missed my point completely on how ancient oral tradition was the complete opposite of today’s “telephone game.”
Daniel,
“Unfortunately, the majority of Christians, like most people, fail to recognize their own errors.”
That’s right, we’re only human. :-)
I couldn’t disagree more with your “mistakes in the Bible” comment.
“But a theory that lacks any scientific background or basis is nothing more than fiction.”
Prove love.
So anything that we don’t understand or the 99.9% of what we still don’t know about the universe is fiction, then?
Vic
February 19th, 2008 at 8:14 am
@ScreenRant: I’m not sure what ‘ancient oral tradition’ has to do with anything we are discussing here. If you are talking about Christianity then oral tradition only accounts for a very minor portion of it’s history. Reading and writing had been invented long before Christ.
If your point is about the constancy of the Bible, an idea that many hold central to their faith, you are in error. The content of the Bible has changed radically over the centuries. As an example, the dead sea scrolls don’t mention hell. Hell was a creation of the Catholic church to limit apostasy. Also the interpretation of the Bible has also changed radically. In the South verses were used to justify slavery.
Ah, I went back and read the original postings. Is your idea that Adam and Eve were there at the point of creation and gave their account through oral tradition. If so, you likely believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. If so, you should know that ID does NOT support that conclusion. ID assumes carbon dating and other techniques that place the age of the Earth around 42 billion years old are CORRECT.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:03 am
I think this is a good thing. This discussion needs to happen. This is the most important topic of out times IMO. If anything is in need of evolution it is religion. It has alot of catching up to do. It needs to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the stone age, and into the 21st century. I agree with others like Deepak Chopra who lament the fact the concept of ID has been hijacked for the purposes of infiltrating public schools for the Christian agenda, and not as serious inquiry into the nature of intelligence and consciousness as it occurs spontaneously in the universe. It’s too bad that the concept is just a Trojan horse, and not a real avenue of study for people interested in the nature of reality, because I do think there are things there to be learned. But not so long as it is beholden to archaic tradition and primitive superstition. It’s about time these conceptual positions began slugging it out in ernest. The world cannot contain the two if it is to ever be conisdered sane.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:13 am
@Robert: Why are science and religion so incompatible? Science deals with the natural world, religion with the supernatural. Seems like the two should be in harmony. Many of the scientists I’ve worked are both people of science and faith. And their understanding of science only enriches their awe and their faith.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:05 am
@Screen Rant: repeatedly now you have failed to see the bigger point in my argument and instead have chosen to try an undermine it by whittling away at lesser important side-points.
Using humanity as a scape-goat to press all of your problems onto is the faulty reasoning that allows these horrendous errors to continue. Instead of fixing the problems, people who use this scape-goat revel in the faultiness of their own indecisiveness.
My argument, my friends, is not against Intelligent Design; rather, it is against Creationism. The scientific evidence that supports creation is weak and paltry, being hijacked by a religion and expounded upon exponentially. This very same religion has used intelligent design to further their own goals of indoctrination. Intelligent design does not prove the existence of God. It only opens Pandora’s box that is filled with more questions.
No, Screen Rant, again you miss my point. The 97% of the Universe that we don’t understand is still there, we just don’t understand it. It is plain ignorance to support a belief that had no evidence whatsoever that supports its reality. Therefore, this said belief, without any proof, is fiction, not part of reality. I could explain the universe by coming up with my own theory on how the earth was created; does that make it real? No. It takes proof, tangible evidence that supports my argument in order for my theory to be accepted and acknowledged. If I have no proof, my theory might as well be a science fiction novel.
@Robert: Well said.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:35 am
I’m not saying they are incompatible. I’m saying the opposite. Scientific inquiry can be used to better to describe what in religion is attributed to magic. The whole thing is to define what people mean when they use the term, “God.” “God” is just shorthand for what science is trying to describe, minus the poetry and magic. They need to fight it out in order to better reach this understanding. I usually tell people I believe in thing you call, “God,” but I don’t call it that. I personally think the Hindus came the closest to telling it like it is in the Bagavad Gita. Krishna or “God” or whatever basically tells this guy to talk about it in terms you are able to understand because you will never really be able describe it or to fully comprehend it all.
I just happen to think we have reached a point where we can talk about the Universe in less primitive terms.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:56 am
To make myself clear, there is no supernatural.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:12 am
What is Ben Stein trying to prove here? I think Darwinism is more persecuted than any religious belief. Maybe he should go back to hosting shitty TV programs like America’s Next Top Model, where he himself ridicules people for being “stupid.”
February 19th, 2008 at 11:41 am
@Brian: It’s a rite of passage for right wing pundits. They have to pander to the extreme religious right and outside of abortion this is their signature issue. Extreme social conservatives believe that evolution is the root of all evil because as they see it people who believe in evolution can become disconnected from God. They believe that if they stop the teaching of evolution then homosexuality, pornography, apostasy, etc. will all disappear.
It’s the 21st century version of the church fighting against heliocentrism (the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun). Once the heliocentric view became undeniable they needed another whipping boy and now they have it; Darwinism. Should they succeed and find that evolution was not, in fact, the root of all evil, I’m sure they will pick another whipping boy.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
i’ll watch the ben stein movie over bill maher’s, just for the fact that i’d rather watch ben stein than bill maher. and these movies are the same but not entirely. it seems ben stein’s is about not having to shut up about a belief or a scientific opinion. there are many scientists proving their theories wrong and looking into creationism. darwinism and the evolution thing is still pretty new in terms of how old the world is. either way, i’m glad both of these movies get talked about on /film, therefore i will continue to use this site as a means for the latest film news. thanks, hunter!
February 19th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Watch both, and then see who makes fun of the other one just for the sake of making fun of the other side.
I understand that Evolutionist think Creation is wrong, but the truth is… no side has all the facts. we don’t.
face it, or fool yourself.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
@DB: Your comment implies that there is an equivalency between the theory of evolution and the theory of ID. There are not on the same playing field at all. Evolution is a genuine scientific theory proven over the last 150 years by countless scientific observations and which is referenced in tens of thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers. It is so well proven that it stands in the ranks of the ‘theory of gravity’.
ID is a hoax. A sham. ID is not a scientific theory, it has no testable hypotheses, there has never been a paper on it, and what claims have been made so far have all been disproved. The notion that there is any equivalency at all is ludicrous.
ID is the brainchild of a small group of religious fundamentalists pushing the ‘wedge strategy’ (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html) which they hope will turn ‘America into a Christian nation’.
ID is not science. It never has been science. Science cannot account for the supernatural. Science handles the natural world. Not the ’super’-natural world. That is the domain of religion.
How about we let the scientists do the science stuff, and the preachers do the religious stuff, and we keep the two apart? Seems reasonable enough to me.
It is nice to see that you have dropped the ‘ID’ premise in your post and gone with ‘creation’ as ‘Intelligent Design’ is only a rebranding of ‘creationism’.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I find it intriguing that people are seriously calling this un-intelligent. If it was so un-intelligent then myriad of scientists that support intelligent design, and even creationism should be considered as such as well. The fact that it’s being touted as something wrong or un-intelligent is just foolish. And I certainly agree with the remark made before hand in which the over exaggerated population end up just making themselves look foolish, which is what seems to be occurring on this blog. Especially without seeing the film before hand.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
And did somebody just say ID has no testable hypothesis? ARE YOU KIDDING!! Show me the testable big bang. Or the testable ACTUAL evidence for macro-evolution. I have never once seen my dog actually go from a dog to a different species all together because scientifically the Law of Biogenesis states that like things only bring like things. Maybe it’s the testable fact that we have not seen any supposed inter-mediate versions between a monkey and a human still in process. Only bones, many of which have been proved as hoaxes. But declaring ID untestable when it’s not even close to being posssible to test any form of the evolutionary process is just ridiculous. The only form of evolution that can be shown is micro-evolution which is based on changes within a species that are in reply to different surroundings. But even that is an evidence against evolution. The brain has such great plasticity that it has been proven to be able to rewire itself. Never to completely change it’s development into another species
February 19th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
James–
Testable Big Bang: besides being the most mathematically feasible hypothesis at this moment, scientists right now at the Large Hadron Collider are using hyperaccelerated elementary particles to study and possibly recreate such cosmic events as black holes and the Big Bang.
Evolutionary evidence: for starters, archaeologists across the world have found scores of fossils for so-called “transition species”. Secondly, microbiologists have chronicled actual evolution on the bacterial level, with some species of bacteria actually evolving into something new over the hundreds of thousands of generations. Finally, your “example” of evolution (your dog spontaneously changing into a different species) shows a monumental misunderstanding of the theories of evolution and natural selection.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
What amazes me about Ben Steins thesis in this case is how completely inverted it is. On it’s own merits Intelligent Design is junk science at best. It’s only because it’s backed up by powerful Christians that it gets any play at all.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:58 am
JDH: While my comment might have implied equivalency, what I’m trying to say is that while one side may have a lot of study, research and papers to back up its theory it does not necessarily make it truth. We cannot actually prove (at least at this time) that something came from nothing. We also cannot prove that someone/something created everything. Stein is simply saying, the voice of the creation angle has been silenced and we ridicule anyone for studying it or actually believing they might have something.
What is wrong with studying a theory and not calling it fact or truth? Had we stopped Darwin from researching his theory we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I believe I’ll watch both films, but I’m more interested in Stein’s because I know what I’m going to get with religulous.
@DB: Your comment implies that there is an equivalency between the theory of evolution and the theory of ID. There are not on the same playing field at all. Evolution is a genuine scientific theory proven over the last 150 years by countless scientific observations and which is referenced in tens of thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers. It is so well proven that it stands in the ranks of the ‘theory of gravity’.
ID is a hoax. A sham. ID is not a scientific theory, it has no testable hypotheses, there has never been a paper on it, and what claims have been made so far have all been disproved. The notion that there is any equivalency at all is ludicrous.
ID is the brainchild of a small group of religious fundamentalists pushing the ‘wedge strategy’ (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html) which they hope will turn ‘America into a Christian nation’.
ID is not science. It never has been science. Science cannot account for the supernatural. Science handles the natural world. Not the ’super’-natural world. That is the domain of religion.
How about we let the scientists do the science stuff, and the preachers do the religious stuff, and we keep the two apart? Seems reasonable enough to me.
It is nice to see that you have dropped the ‘ID’ premise in your post and gone with ‘creation’ as ‘Intelligent Design’ is only a rebranding of ‘creationism’.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:58 am
James, James, James, you’re WAY out of your league Buddy. And you clearly know nothing about dogs.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:37 am
@James: I’m curious. What would expect your dog to do to prove evolution? Mutate spontaneously? Do you really believe that evolutionary theory predicts that? Actually, if any theory predicts that it would be ID, which says that new species literally appear fully formed from nothingness spontaneously through divine intervention. I’m pretty sure I haven’t seen that happen.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Talking about mathematics in the realm of the big bang is like talking about counting the sand of the earth. The fact that the LHC is conducting experiments to resemble the Big Bang and black holes holds two points. First, the fact that they are creating their own environment and setting into effect what they believe happened seems to suggest more of a higher intelligence setup than it does any random happenings. For one, they can only assume what a Big Bang would be like because nobody was there to note it, and being that it was originally in the form of a singularity, seperating elements of it allready destorys the original presupposition that it was all by itself (and began who knows when either eternally before that or came from something, still nobody knows). That still does not explain the inconsistencies from a world that would have come from teh Big Bang such as the lack of anti-matter which should have been produced in balance with matter, yet none exists; monopoles are missing which are expected to be produced with the extreme heat in the original big bang; or that the original reaction can only account for the three lightest elements when there are around 90 elements in the universe, the explanation is that the heavier elements were created with nucleur fusion in the core of a star, the logic would be then that the original stars would be around with those lightest 3 elements at their core because the age of these stars are calculated as preceeding the big bang in age, yes surprisingly there are no such stars. Add such pressuposed yet unproven and un-intiated theories such as inflation, dark matter, and dark energy of which none have proof of existance. Or perhaps the great mass of scientists (many secular, not Christian) are opposing the theory now (Lerner, E., et al., An open letter to the scientific community, New Scientist 182(2448):20, May 22, 2004. Available online at http://www.cosmologystatement.org. )
On the transition pieces of evolution. The great world of archeology has been proven to have created many of their pieces. Second, the great mass of scientists cannot agree on the date or age of any of the fossils and so the dissonance of voices makes it tough to try and place any fossil in a timeline. As well, the amount of supposed fossils in evolutionary discovery actually pale in comparison to the many that are discovered outside of that. We only hear about the ones supposedly fortifying that particular theory. For instance, study the Java Homo erectus fossils discovered in Autrailia (the Kow Swamp material, the Cossack skull, the Willandra Lakes WHL 50 skull, etc.) and try to figure out why scientists call them Homo sapians when they clearly resemble the Java homo erectus. The reasoning? Because they are only dated thousands of years, which are years after they are supposed to be, so the answer is to call them something different. Or on the flip side, skull KNM-ER 1470, the leg bones KNM-ER 148 I, and the skull KNM-ER 1590, found by Richard Leakey in East Africa are under the category of Homo habilus when they can clearly be categorized under moder leg bones for homo sapiens. The reason? they date them to 2 million years so they ‘obviously’ can’t be homo sapien.
Then my MONUMENTAL evolutionary misunderstanding. There is no understanding. Evolution is supposed to happen over massive amounts of time where species change and develop in order to survive in their habitat. Such as the idea that a bat developed it’s sonar ability because it needed to see in the dark and all prior forms of that bat who couldn’t died because they were blind, so nature ‘decided?’ to slowly develo (or quickly develop depending on who you talk to) teh sonar for the bat so that it could eat. Here’s where brain placticity comes in. Supposedly the monkey evolved just like other species to support some need. But the discovery of the placticity of the brain (Greenough, W.T., and F.F. Chang (1989) “Plasticity of Synapse Structure and Pattern in the Cerebral Cortex,†Cerebral Cortex, ed. A. Peters, E.G. Jones, 7:391-440 (New York: Plenum) shows that even animals have the ability to adapt to many environments to a point based on the plasticity of their brain. Hence also why humans who live in ceratin areas of the world are set to be able to combat the cold but humans in hot areas are different. Partly because they can consciensly decided to adapt, but as well their body setup combats it better after time though not by macro-evolutionary change. And there’s another study. The mind that is above matter. Our brain is productive even when we are intending to do something and not just when we are actuallying doing it. John Carew Eccles of Australia made the discovery and won a Nobel prize for it. But how does evolution explain an outer experiencesd ‘mind’ that controls the ‘matter’ when evolutionists have said prior that it’s all the same? Must be one of those ‘monumental’ mis-understandings.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I’m sure Peter saw it coming, but I think the comments were supposed to be more about the topic and not about a debate about Creation Vs Big Bang.
If you guys would like to have a debate maybe do it over email.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Sorry.
As far as the movies go. Obviously you know my view point. But I think both films should be viewed by all sides. If anything to see what the other side thinks. Like was quoted in the Ben Stein trailer, those who feel their confident should not be afraid of criticism. So by seeing the other movie and the movie of your side, you see both the fuel for your own fire, and the potential water that can put it out. It’s a good excersize
February 20th, 2008 at 10:44 am
@James: Would you feel the same way if the film was advocating that the Sun rotated around the Earth? That’s just the kind of parallel we are talking about here. ID isn’t science. It’s a joke.
And your points about evolution, while well stated and interesting, can only hurt evolution, they don’t prove ID. Disproving evolution does not prove ID.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:35 am
I agree that just disproving evo does not prove ID. Just like when a politician takes shots at the other guy they are only showing how they are wrong but doesn’t show how they are personally right. I was merely answering the arguments.
As far as the film, I think there is a misunderstanding about geocentricism and how it applies to ID particularly. That is an old theory that some took as real and some bought into examples in the Bible that are mis-used. When it’s refered to as the sun rising and such, that’s the same language we use from the authors point of view. We see the sun rise, even though we know that we are actually turning to see it. As well, Copernicus, Kepler, and even Gallileo (though I will get flack for this) were all Christians and Creationists. Gallileo though has the most atheistic backing. Because it’s assumed that he was excommunicated for his belief. But find neutral historians on the subject and they will say how that is not true. He was actually supported by many of the religious, but his evidence didn’t quite add up yet so they told him to hold off. Instead he didn’t and that’s when they opposed him. And actually his evidence (though the end result was correct) was faulty.
As far as proving creationism, I can detail some evidences, but we’ve allready been asked to exclude and discuss the topic at hand. I don’t necessarily want to be banned from discussing things here. If you have a nuetral blog, or want to discuss via e-mail I’d be happy too. I love hearing what others believe and why.
Thank you
February 20th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
@James: My point about the Earth rotating around the Sun is that it’s a fact. And that a movie that posits otherwise would be seen, in the light of fact, as nuts. ID is the same level of sham science as geocentrism. It’s only getting play because some Christians are pushing it as part of a wider political agenda.
As for your evidences of creation, I would love to hear them. I so often hear creationists rail against evolution then provide no evidence to back up ID. For example, “The Design Of Life” is 300 pages long but the equation used to decide what is designed and what is not is excluded because it’s “too complex”.
BTW, nothing actually proves ID since ID has never been presented as a complete standalone theory. It’s always presented as a critic of evolution replete with ad homonym attacks on Darwin. Until there is a document that presents all of biology in the light of ID and ID alone, then there is no way to prove it at all. And even then, it can’t be proven since you can neither prove or disprove a creator.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
You can also neither prove or disprove the big bang because nobody was there. It’s called inductive reasoning. Merely calling ID a nonsensical theory and saying it’s dumb and not on the same level is only a type of argument that’s used to make the other look bad without debating the evidence. If you are going to comment and bring me examples I can work with. Do that. Otherwise just calling it a foolish theory only expresses your opinion. It doesn’t actually make any reasonable argumentative points though. And actually, there are several poles out there showing that the lines are drawn pretty evenly amongst scientists as to their beliefs in a creator or not. In fact, though i disagree with their means, two very prominant scientists are coming out and saying they see teh need for a Creator. Francis collins, and Owen Gingerich, the former the man who was responsible for a great deal of DNA work that helped us understand that field greater in detail, and the latter and Astronomer who is well respected and highly touted. There are also sights such as http://www.answersingenesis.com who have great amounts of information scientifically that detail the reasoning behind a God centered universe.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
And to explain my inductive reasoning point. You can take the facts shown to us and follow the reasoning back to the answers. Primarily all people have a presuppositions of what they will believe, and interpret the facts as such. Then it’s just a matter of who’s presuppositions follow along with the facts.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
@James: I thought you were going to bring examples. As for assessing that ID is ‘nonsense’ or more particularly, not science, I’m just repeating what has already been legally judged in the Dover case. ID is not science. Any theory while references the supernatural, by it’s very nature, cannot be science.
Your ‘Answers In Genesis’ site explicitly does NOT support Intelligent Design:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp
Are you a proponent of the Christian story of creation, or of Intelligent Design? From your comments I cannot tell.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I agree with the essence of the ID argument. But not with the cowardly nature of it. The base of it is to say that thare are effects that lead to believe there is intelligence being behind the design of the universe without specifying who or how. I do believe in a specific intelligent designer.
As for anything like ID not being science, I agree in some forms. Excluding some ideas of supernatural in science is a good thing in the sense that no scientist should ever decide an answer is un-explainable because ‘God just made it that way’. At the same time, the study of things being fueld by sumpernatual implications can be beneficial. Again, some of the greatest scientists were God believers and it fueld their discovery of many wonderful things. Scientists like Blaise Pascal, Louise Pastuer, Kepler all based their science in the idea that there was something greater behing the weaving design.
To not extend the paragraphs too far, I explained that I would love to provide information on Creation but we’ve allready been asked to stick to the original question. I offered to extend the debate at any other site. But again, with respect to the people opening the blog, I believe we should not force their hand to ban or block us because we can’t listen to their rules.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
@James: It seems like you would not support teaching ID in the science classroom. On this we agree. I think ID is a fine topic for philosophy or religion classes.
As for learning more about creationism, I appreciate the offer but honestly, I’m not interested. I’ve heard more than my fill of it over the years.
My only concern is keeping the science classroom free of topics which aren’t science. We need our kids to embrace real science so they can compete in the global economy of the 21st century. Anything that gets in the way of that will have a serious economic impact on this country.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I agree with the statements. But I also would assert that if the evidence does not support things such as evolution, or the big bang, than it would go to prove that much of it is presupposition. If this is teh case, then both topics should be taught under the topic of ‘origin science’. Neither the Big Bang, or the story of Creation can be re-created in the sense of having it happen all over again. But if people base their science on one or the other and it happens to be wrong, then their science is also flawed to an extent. I believe that is potentially a reason for Stein’s movie. It happens often that a certain point of view is not considered only because of how the person or people feel about it, or it’s backers. In this case. If these scientists are bringing what can be considered as evidence that either evolution is wrong, or that creation is justified, then it should be at the very least, heard and considered.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
@James: I’ve read on the anti-evolution site that you sent along about presuppositions and frankly it’s psychobabble. The scientific method is very clear and easy to understand. Evolution is a product of the scientific method and is supported by the vast majority of relevant scientists (even though the vast majority of all scientists are people of faith.)
Here is a question for you; how strong are your convictions? Every pharmaceutical developed is based on lab testing using animals. That’s because according to evolution (which is proven by DNA), we are related to these animals. Since you don’t believe in evolution you should not believe that these drugs could be tested properly and you should forgo using them. Is your faith in your anti-evolution stance strong enough for you to forgo any pharmaceuticals? Or any medical practice or procedure based on animal testing?
February 20th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Nobody is saying the scientific method is crap or unprovable. It is the “body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge” by gathering observable or testable and converting that to data to formulate and test hypothesis. Who ever said I didn’t believe in that. But I also believe in what Immanuel Kant descriped as the Neumena (sorry about spelling), which what is intrinsically undescribable. For instance, an example is that an apple has it’s nuemenal qualities such as it’s mass or weight, then it’s phenomenal qualities such as how it is red, or tastes a certain way. In the same way, I will never know what a cat feels or how it thinks because that is it’s neumenal quality, but we can test it’s phenominal qualities because those are based off of what we perceive of that cat. So here’s the question. If we have no past basis for or foundation for how we believe or what is reality, how do we know that our phenominal instincts are telling us the truth about reality? You are supposing, if there is no foundation law planted in something constand and independant, that our supposed human reason is the end all of truth and interprestation of fact. That is requiring more faith, than I have to have in order to believe in an higher power. Thus, the scientific method, is only as good as it’s user. If we have no real basis, for how we perceive reality, only what we can classify as the observation and experimentation of the phenoninal evidence, then we will never know if we know what we are really talking about or not. Because we will never know thoe neumenal qualities in something else, because we cannot test, or experiment on it. We can only come close as John Eccles did when he observed the brain at work in the un-examinable intention prior to the examinable action. So to say that scientific method is the end all, is merely a naiive approach to the amount of content actually at work in the world.
And based on this observable phenonmena and how we interpret it. How do you know that answersingenesis is only pshycho-babel? I can read a doctors prognosis of a disease and consider it on the level of psycho-babel as well.
And on the whole testing of animals thing. That’s just silly. If we are all on the same level and from the same origin, why not test it on people and not animals? because there is no worth of one over the other. But testing it on animals is becaus teh worth of a person is more than an animal. I am not advocating animal abuse or harm to animals. In fact we are to be good stewards of what we have and take care as we can. But if a disease is cauging harm to people, and an antidote is possible, then the worth of the person is more than the animal and that is why it’s tested as such. It actually makes less sense as an evolutionary idea. If we’re all the same, just test all of it on people, it would give you quicker results.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
@James: You missed my point about animal testing completely. It’s not about the ethics of testing. It’s about whether or not we are related to animals. Do we share common descent with animals? If not, then testing on animals cannot be equated to testing on humans because we would have completely different physiologies. Do we share common descent with animals?
February 20th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
and you missed mt answer. its not necessarily about common descent. yes there are things that are similar, you’d assume that from one designer. I was arguing from the position that they do not test purely on similarities, but dissimilarities. we view humans as more valuable, so we do not test these things on them. but if we are all equally worthless, then the assumption would be to test on people because you’d get a result faster
February 20th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
@James: Neither ID or the Bible back your claim. Your assumption is just you. But of course, it really isn’t, the fact of the matter is that while you want to ‘believe’ in the Bible, you depend on science to be correct. And in this case evolution is the science you depend on. Your health, the health of your family, depend on the science that you spit on. The car you drive to work, the plane you fly in to your vacation, they depend on the same physics that predict the big bang. But you spit on that too.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
@James: You might ask just how you are ’spitting’ on evolutionists. I’ll answer by pointing back at the trailer for this movie. Ben Stein uses Holocaust imagery to equate evolutionists with Nazis. Which, unfortunately, is far from an uncommon tactic in this debate. The ’school textbook’ of ID uses Holocaust imagery. The site you point to, Answers In Genesis, has Holocaust and Slavery images right on the home page. And yes, I consider being equated with Nazis spitting in my face.
Evolutionists should be proud of what Darwin’s theory has allowed us to accomplish. It’s helped cure polio. It’s helped developed strains of wheat which have saved millions from starvation. It’s helped developed medicines which have extended all of our lives. It’s helped diagnose and target diseases. Evolution has nothing to do with Nazis or Slavery, and to equate them is obscene rhetoric of the highest order and those who employ it should be ashamed of themselves.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Both sides of this debate (and the many shades in between) may be interested in the following ruling on teaching evolution in Florida (somewhat humorous)…
“Evolution Wins as Creationists (Accidentally) Switch Sides in Florida”
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/evolution-wins.html
February 20th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
@Hunter: Great link! I love it. In the comments section there was this huge rant about a book, “Quest For Right”, and how it was a complete series of textbooks for schools that fuse Biblical teachings and science (woo hoo!) Turns out there is only one written and it’s a psycho rant about evolution (as usual).
Here is the author trying to figure out how light appears on day four in Genesis:
“…Interestingly, light but not the sun was created on the first day; the sun was created on the fourth day. The cleric scholarship, unaccustomed to the laws of classical physics, has been rendered impotent in the submission of any viable mechanism. The league of scientists are similarly neutralized even though they have the answer within their grasp. …. The mystery is solved by entertaining a certain aspect of the marvelous water molecule.”
Right on! Such scholarship! I’m dumbfounded as to why this isn’t being taught in our schools!
It’s worth noting that the author is a big Ben Stein fan (and who isn’t really?)
http://questforright.com/quest3.htm
With advocates like this, who needs enemies!
February 20th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
You keep making assertions as though I am spitting on science or turning on science. I’ve never made that claim. Stop making up arguments that never exist. I have never said science is a problem it’s the interpretation or presupposition of that science that is problem. You’re no longer arguing about facts or proof but about merely how dumb you think creation is. And your making ridiculous assertions about somehow tying nazism to Creation. That’s lunacy. The fact is that the idea that Hitler accepted was Social Darwinism which while most evolutionists do not accept it now it was a prevelant theory that many evolutionists accepted before. The idea that there was a higher race of people or a higher evolutionary scale. Second I cannot vouch for every advocate of ID making well rounded arguments. But the thing is, using somebody batched explanation of Genesis as some proof that it’s foolish doesn’t do anything. The fact is that Genesis is written like a movie critic watching a movie and describing what he saw, then describing it in more detail. So when the author writes that light was created, he is doing so in sequence then explaining it later.
The one thing obvious about this debate is it’s turned to a more debase frame of mind. The fact that you’re using silly questions and non-sensical statements about how evolution is proved because we test our medicines on dogs means your running out of real ideas. It seems to usually happen with people who don’t know what their talking about but would rather run their mouth on ideas they just can’t prove. If I’m correct, there was supposed to be no hate speach, and your arguments seem to all be based initially on this supposed assumption that creation is just not in a league with evolution. The truth is, evolution is just as much of a religion as Christianity. It’s some peoples belief on life that filters into their thinking in other areas. Good luck with moving forward with these ideas because prejudice usually falls at teh feat of reason eventually.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
I’m officially out
February 21st, 2008 at 9:36 am
@James: I’m prejudiced because I don’t want astrology, alchemy, divination or intelligent design taught in the classroom? Please.
I’m a man of faith. I don’t discriminate against anyones faith. Anyone is free to believe as they wish. I’m not the one that’s equating today’s scientists, who work tirelessly to benefit humanity, to nazis. I’m the one who is prejudiced?
All I ask is that you teach my kid science in science class. Is that so tough? Evolution is science, it’s proven overwhelmingly by DNA evidence in addition to numerous other sources. Intelligent design is not a theory and is not proven. When it is, come back, and we can talk about getting it into the classroom.
Even you don’t believe in ID. The site you point to, Answers In Genesis, doesn’t support ID. It even undermines it.
I’m not even sure that ID believers would know how to teach ID in the classroom if it ever was approved. There isn’t enough material there to teach. My suspicion is that this movie is just part of an effort to whip up the evangelicals to vote in 2008.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:31 am
Your still playing this game where you throw other things in the boat in order to make it sound worse. It’s more of a simple mind game than it is anything. For instance if I said, “I don’t want marxism, nazisim, racism, evolution in my classrooms” it would sound worse. What’s funny though is that the previous 3 have been attributed to social darwinism in most forms. As well, the main reasercher on DNA in our day is an Intelligent Design proponent. So it’s odd you would say that DNA proves it wrong. Again, Francis Collins wrote the book ‘Language of God’ detailing the undeniable string of design within the DNA.
As far as Answers in Genesis. We allready discussed this point. The essence of the ID argument is that the evidence leads one to believe in a designer and intelligent one at that. The old reasoning I believe still remains true. If you walked through a forest and found a watch laying on the ground, you would notice it’s intricate working and immediately attribute it to a designer. We live in a world that is perfectly situated for us to live in. Atheist, Christian, Scientist, laymen, darwinist, creationist, all will admit to that. The only difference is one will say nothing made it perfect, and the other will say it was designed that way.
ID in itself is a cowardly approach because it will leave the door open for something, but will not claim any particular stance. Again, we’ve gone over that too. While I disagree with the end result of ID, I cannot say that leaving it out of the classroom would be totally beneficial. The way it looks ID was an attempt to show what evidence supports a desinger to the design without offending other peoples of faith.
Prior to to all of this banter I wrote a long detailed reasoning why the big bang, and evolution seems like more of a confusing theory than scientific fact. You keep bringing up ‘examples’ such as DNA support for evolution. I at least lined up sources including the scientific backlash from secular scientists against big bang. Your reccomendations have continued to be empty ideas. Bring an example so that I can look at it. It would be easier to study and refute a supposed fact than it would be to try and continue and answer your empty banter.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:08 pm
did someone say there are transitional forms
in the fossil record?
Could you post some pictures please
and give us the addy so we can go see?
February 21st, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Good call. It seems my comment from 10:30 this morning is still in teh moderation que. Not sure why. But I agree with the previous posting. Let’s see some examples as opposed to open ended statements.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:24 pm
@James: Examples of what? I just provided links to transitional fossils material. What other examples would you like me to provide in my defense of a 150 year old scientific theory supported by the scientific community en mass and backed up by reams of evidence, fossils, DNA testing and more.
How about you offer some evidence of the ‘growing number of biologists supporting intelligent design’ that we have heard so much about?
February 21st, 2008 at 4:26 pm
@ James
There is no conspiracy here. ;) Peter will post it when he gets in.
February 21st, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Yeah, I think these are two separate debates, really. I also think that evolution as a theory should not be perceived to be at odds with ID, and vice versa. Darwinism does an excellent job describing how living organisms adapt in response to environmental selection forces. It cannot even hope to describe the origins of life, and despite the construals of many atheists, doesn’t disprove the existence of an intelligent entity that may or may not have set the entire universe in motion.
ID is not empiricially testable in large part. It shouldn’t be taught in biology, but neither should evolution be presented as the antithesis of creationism, because it is not. They are completely unrelated concepts IMO. It will be interesting to see, whether or not certain tenets of the ID framework can be advanced enough to one day be part of a school curriculum (ie irreducible complexity eg the bacterial flagella).