"Expelled", movie by Ben Stein

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you don't like it don't watch it. I just love it when people who claim to be open minded & liberal about life, immediately close there mind to anything new that might challenges their stead fast beliefs. I thought being open-minded was about willing to at understand another point of view without denigrate it. Though I am a firm believer in Evolution, I will not dismiss people who don't believe in it or have a different POV. Sad state of affairs. No wonder why there is so much intolerance in the world today.
 
Continued

The intelligent design theory fits all the evidence but anyone advancing that theory is ridiculed and run out despite the fundamental failings of evolution as described above. Why? Because they can't scientifically prove it. But neither can the geneticists for evolution. Well, evolution is accepted and has the edge because no intelligent designer or creator is required to be in the equation. So what if life can't form spontaneously of evolve trans species. We really don't want there to be a creator, that's religion/philosophy, not science.
Click to expand...

This statement proves that religion should be kept at 500 yards from science at all times. I would love to incorporate a "higher power" into rational scientific thought but it just doesn`t work and the statement above clearly proves that.

In closing, please let me state that methodologies of logic and methodologies of faith ARE TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES AND DO NOT SUPPORT NOR CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. Believe it or not, many, many, MANY scientists are believers in an "higher intelligence". Just ask Al Einstein...oh wait anybody got a Ouija board :rolleyes:.




Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
Many of you seem to be falling off into the "God of the Gaps" argument, which is nice until you run out of gaps to stick God into (as WA so nicely pointed out). Remember just because we can't explain it doesn't mean God did it.
Click to expand...

Your atheism requires about as much subjection as any preposterous religion of choice. Point is that we have no substantial clue. Something not being here one minute and being here the next is no more or less inplausible than God.
 
Your atheism requires about as much subjection as any preposterous religion of choice
Click to expand...

Not so much.......

Science has many "clues" about how the Universe formed (none of which need magic or God). Thus when you add God you violating Occam's razor with an unnessicary add-on that isn't essential to the theory.

Besides, it's quite a leap to go from where you leave off are to believing that there is an all power-ful, intelligent creator of the universe, much less one who cares about us or hears our prayers. And even less one who bothered to start a fan-club here on our tiny, unimportant speck of the Univerese.

And if there is a God, he sure is inefficent and does sloopy workmanship. Why not just wave his magical hand and be done with it, rather than bothering with Evolution, Big Bang and everything else? Having a meaningful & relevant God and evolution, really doesn't make much sense (and I'm not even bringing in how if there was no Adam & Eve since they evolved, there could of been no "original sin" which makes Jesus & the crucifixtion just an amusing publicity stunt).
 
I see...... Then I recomend Richard Dawkin's, The God Delusion and than you can finally get rid of that silly thing about us Athiests (I read the Bible and found it one of the best arguments against Christianity I've seen yet. I also read about 12 pages of Joel Osteen's book and realized a 3rd grader could write it).
Click to expand...

I haven't read Dawkin's book, but it is on my list. I've certainly heard him speak and read bits and pieces of what he has to say. I've also read whydoesgothateamputees.com (or something like that) pretty much all the way through.

Like I said ... just like I read "gunguys.com" and this site every day, I have no fear of reading these other viewpoints. If you truly believe that you beliefs are well founded you should fear no alternate viewpoints.

Haven't read Olsteen ... not a fan of him personally. He's not on my list.

As for the bible ... just like holy water would probably burn your skin the bible probably fried your brain (just kidding) ;)

Taken as a whole and through the eys of faith, the bible is 100% consistent. before I became a believer some years ago I had a general belief in God but not in the bible. Now that I have read it completely through, I have no more doubts.

I wish I could bring you to know what I do ... but I'm guessing this isn't the forum.

At least the moderators are OK with religious debates going on and on on a gun forum ...
 
Having seen the movie, here's what it is and what it is not

The main thrust of the movie is this. It does not "push" for acceptance of intelligent design. He interviewed credentialed scientists on every side of the issue, unhurried interviews.

He does not dismiss evolution. He does not advocate that intelligent design be taught or regarded as a science.

His point is that reputable scientists who have only breathed the two words "intelligent design" have been subjected to consequences that I can't believe any of you would consider to be civilized.

I was taught evolution in biology at a very conservative Catholic institution. Evolution was not condemned there. I have not studied evolution at any length, but I find nothing in the evolution theory that I know of to be at odds with believing that everthing comes from somewhere. Otherwise, I'd have to believe that hydrogen and helium, the first elements that followed the Big Bang, had the inherent capability of eventually leading to folks like us who can discuss things on forums like this. Smart gasses they!
Regards
 
Religion and Intelligent Design are beautiful things but must be taken in moderation.




Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
Science has many "clues" about how the Universe formed
Click to expand...

Like what? Some quantum singularity? Where did the quantum singularity come from? Something from nothing has no scientific explanation no matter how well you try to dress it up.


BTW, if you buy in to the eternally oscillating singularity, can you comprehend infinitely old easier than God?

I find one incomprehensible theory equal to the other and understand quite well that I have no idea what the truth will be in the few hundred or thousand years or if ever we figure it out.
 
While theory founded upon theorys (isn't there a term for that) and conclusions about observations being based on the theory based theories are all quite technical, the point being made in "Expelled" is that those that are expert and competent to speak to the tecnicalities but don't agree with the conclusions being made are trounced out and the opportunities to further research their different conclusions are closed. This leads to them doing their research at lesser known facilities. When their findings are presented they are discounted out of hand as 'obscure' because it was not done at the 'pretigious' institutions.

The qoute made that was ignored because of a percieved misunderstanding of the definition holds the foundation. A foundation that doesn't pan out. Life starting as a primordial ooze of organic compounds coming to 'life' and that life evolving into more and more comlex forms. It is the definition of evolution, not the definition of theory, I was going off of. That people through the force of enviromental conditions or changes in what is 'atractive' about a potential mate have split into races with distinct phisical differences is not questioned. There having a root common spontaneous life form that branched into the array of life today requires as much faith as there once being an enormous amout of life of vastly different kinds starting out and extinctions and adaptations taking place to today with what we have being the remainder.

Research and education, along with virtually everything else, have become a means to persuit political goals rather then to attain knowledge. The infiltration into acedemia by polital activism has damaged the credibility of acedemia and the accuracy of eduaction to the point of people wondering what the hell is actual fact. Even to the point of people believeing that truth is subjective.

If the other conclusions are truly without merit then let it play out. If, in the course of persuing a wide variety of possibilities we come to a third or fourth conclusion then we have attained what we are striving for in science, to discover the emipical nature of things. What if there is a part of nature where energy is organized but not phisical. What if there turns out to be no difference in findings after all and it was just a perspective or definition that we had off that brings a new understanding. We can't achieve new knowledge while pushing out perspectives because they have implications we don't want to accept. Isn't that the razor, accepting the implications. The result of ingnoring information because we don't want to accept the implications is making the entire effort a practice in futility.

The movie is demonstarating that point.
 
Unlike some posters, I've actually seen the movie...

and I found it interesting, although I'd followed most of the stories in the major media over the last few years.

You see, the movie isn't about creationism. It's not exactly about the "theory of evolution" either. It's most certainly a story about how scientists with solid credentials are being denied tenure, publication, or recognition because they ever mentioned Intelligent Design (ID).

For the record, some of the scientists in question are not creationists, and some are not completely ID supporters. They simply said in class, or in public, or in an article that ID had some basis for support. One scientist simply published a peer-reviewed article that mentioned ID in the last paragraph. He didn't write it, he simply published it in the Smithsonion magazine and found himself out of a job.

I realize this debate hasn't stuck to the facts very well, but there they are. The movie is about the fate of these scientists, not about the viability of ID, although you will find plenty of arguements in the film.

For the record, I am a born-again Christian. I've known several PhDs, MDs, and more MBAs than I can remember who were believers in creationism. Most also believed in some form of evolution, but only so far as it is supported by solid science. None of them believed in a sponaneous accidental beginning.

As on evolutionary biologist postulated in the movie, live may have begun when proteins arranged themselves accidentally in the correct order on the backs of crystals, or it may have been planted here by aliens. If that's the best they've got, I'll take ID.
 
The direction of this thread needs to change if it is to remain open. This is not the place to discuss intelligent design and creation versus the big bang and evolution.

The topic of the movie is on-topic enough for this forum.

It is baffling to me that someone wrote that Stein is trying to stifle free speech or get creation taught in schools. This movie is not about that.

See for yourself: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

The movie is about elitists who hide behind their "science" and quash the free and open exchange of ideas. Want to see examples of what I mean? Go back and read this thread and look at the way a few of our members address others (like me) who dare to believe that everything we see was created.

By association, I have been compared to a caveman and a Holocaust denier. Nice... :(

For people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, WildAlaska and Beretta686 apparently, tolerance of opposing viewpoints is intolerable.

WHO: Ben Stein, in the new film EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

WHAT: His heroic and, at times, shocking journey confronting the world’s top scientists, educators and philosophers, regarding the persecution of the many by an elite few.

WHEN: Coming to a theater near you on April 18, 2008

WHERE: Ben travels the world on his quest, and learns an awe-inspiring truth…that bewilders him, then angers him…and then spurs him to action!

WHY: Ben realizes that he has been “Expelled,” and that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance.
Click to expand...

Continued discussion of intelligent design vs. evolution will result in this thread being closed. Feel free to discuss free-speech issues on the university campus all you like.

.
 
Science, Religion, Politics, Intelligent Design, Philosophy; these are subjects that, unfortunately, pervade each other. People, unwillingly and unknowingly, convolute them and confuse one with the other. "Expelled" sounds like an interesting movie.




Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
The "Expelled Exposed" website ( http://www.expelledexposed.com/ ) makes it clear that these people (who were supposedly run out of town on a rail for their quasi-scientific religous beliefs) were not punished for their beliefs in any way to begin with; they were subjected to the same sort of peer review that EVERY scientist or author is expected to face, and because they couldn't accept that, they're now crying "This is because I believe in my particular god, isn't it?!?!?!"
 
Please see it, then form an opinion. Anything else is bassackwards.

I'm astounded to read some of the judgements about a film that seems pretty straightforward and open handed, by some who have not even seen it.

Reminds me of my ex who would only listen to the first few words of what I (or anyone else) was trying to say, then jump in with her comments. She wasn't stupid but I think she missed over half of what was going on in the world. It made meaningful exchanges impossible.
 
Taken as a whole and through the eys of faith, the bible is 100% consistent. before I became a believer some years ago I had a general belief in God but not in the bible. Now that I have read it completely through, I have no more doubts.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes::rolleyes:....Even though it contradicts itself and a most of what has been written in it has been disproven??

(Sorry I couldnt resist):p

I was part of a debate about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution while in College. What I found remarkable was just how hostile some of the ID crowd was towards those who believed differently. There was even a push to get evolution cast out of biology and replaced by ID. That didnt happen. But what confused me was the fact that after their efforts failed, the students for ID/creationism protested and said that they were being denied their "free speech" rights.

How do you complain about your right to free speech being violated when you pushed to ban something else from being taught???
 
Charles Darwin married his own cousin......
And they accusse Creationists of being Hillbillies.

In addition Charles Darwin was asked in his later years about evolution. His responce was. "I was once a young man with unformed ideas." Interpret that however you so desire.

PS anyone what to place bets on when the Admin will close this thread? It don't take much to see where it's headed..
 
TheFacts said:
In closing, please let me state that methodologies of logic and methodologies of faith ARE TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES AND DO NOT SUPPORT NOR CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.
Click to expand...
I've said that forever (it seems).

And this thread is just another example of why we don't mix God/Religion with Legal/Political discussions.

Having written that, let me quote something, to reinforce the message:
Dave said:
Continued discussion of intelligent design vs. evolution will result in this thread being closed.
Click to expand...

ETA: Just reread the posts after Daves. Closed for being off topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top