EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed
Finally, a movie to look forward to! Ben Stein interviews scientists and teachers who have been persecuted for their audacity to question Darwinian Evolution. He also interviews adherents to the theory of evolution, and allows them to fully and clearly articulate their point of view... which results in exposing the weakness and the problems of evolution.
The movie opens April 18th. (which, oddly enough is my brother's 39th birtday... enjoy youth while it lasts ~400 days and counting, bro!)
You can view trailers and more detailed information at www.expelledthemovie.com.
The movie opens April 18th. (which, oddly enough is my brother's 39th birtday... enjoy youth while it lasts ~400 days and counting, bro!)
You can view trailers and more detailed information at www.expelledthemovie.com.
Labels: evolution, intelligent design, movies
posted by Bryan at 7:16 AM
9 Comments:
For those of you reading this blog who think that Ben Stein was in any way the motivating force behind “Expelled”, please reconsider.
From the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention Texan interview with Logan Craft (executive producer of Expelled):
http://www.sbtexan.com/default.asp?action=article&aid=5533&issue=2/4/2008
TEXAN: How did Ben Stein come to be involved in the film?
CRAFT: Well, John (Sullivan, producer of Expelled) had a real insight, we believe, into the necessity to have a person, first of all, who wasn’t overtly Christian or overtly religious…
Ben Stein is a hack!
This film is a manufactured argument, cleverly crafted to advance a conservative Christian agenda. Intelligent design at this point, after almost 20 years and millions of dollars tossed at it by the Discovery Institute, is still merely conjecture. It has not yet even been fleshed out into a valid scientific hypothesis, and certainly hasn’t developed into a viable or testable theory.
So at this point, the ID/creationist movement is merely a well-funded public relations effort trying to rally public support by falsely decrying "There is no Freedom of Speech!", and promoting “science/evolution = atheists = Nazism”, rather than offering any positive evidence for why ID should even be considered as science.
To see what people who have seen the movie are saying, go to
www.expelledexposed.com
“Tens of millions of Americans, who neither know nor understand the actual arguments for or even against evolution, march in the army of the night with their Bibles held high. And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason.”
—Isaac Asimov
Anonymous,
First, Ben Stein isn't a hack, he is an actor; a paid professional who brings with him a dry wit and common sense. He also seems to believe what he is involved in, quite a bonus.
Second, thanks for the link to the article on the Southern Baptist Texan magazine website. Oddly you left out the second paragraph of the answer to the question of how Ben Stein became involved.
Once Ben became acquainted with what we were doing, he got excited because he began to see a connection between our exploration and sanctity of life issues. He’s a very, very strong pro-life advocate. He has a high view of human dignity and human sanctity. And he saw a connection between what we were exploring, and sanctity of life issues and the historical elements of the eugenics movement, and especially as a Jewish person, the eugenics movement as it morphed into the Nazi racial cleansing laws.
Third, your argument of there being no evidence is facetious. It is more correctly claimed that there is no evidence for Darwinian Evolution. In fact all of the "predictions" that the Theory of Evolution claimed have been proven false, yet still many cling to this failed theory.
I read in a comment to another review that there were no published papers supporting Intelligent Design. While not exactly true, the reason that there are so few ID articles is one of the points of the movie. Anyone with the temerity to attempt to publish such an article is ostracized, and runs the risk of loosing their job. It would kind of be like me submitting an article on communion to a Roman Catholic website. It would only be published if it could be used to support their beliefs.
Darwinian Evolution is a religion, not a theory. Go watch the movie… with an open mind!
bryan-
Please show your references indicating that "all of the predictions that the theory of evolution claimed have been proven false.
In reality, go to pubmed and you can see the 3,581 peer-reviewed scientific articles published within the past 5 years just in the field of biology that do show how the the theory of evolution has been proven to correctly predict outcomes.
The reason that there are virtually no articles on ID is not that they are being suppressed, it is because it is just bad science.
ID is not a theory, it is barely a hypothesis that claims "there are some things that appear designed, so they must have been made by a designer" That offers no testability, no means to falsify, and certainly no predictive power.
It has become common for critics of evolution to claim that it is a religion. An examination of the characteristics which best define religions, distinguishing them from other types of belief systems, reveals just how wrong such claims are: evolution is not a religion or a religious belief system because it does not possess the characteristics of religions.
Belief in Supernatural Beings:
Perhaps the most common and fundamental characteristic of religions is the belief in supernatural beings — usually, but not always, including gods. Very few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded upon it. Does evolution involve belief in supernatural beings like god? No. Evolutionary theory neither encourages nor discourages it. Evolution is accepted by theists and atheists, regardless of their position on the existence of the supernatural. The mere existence or nonexistence of supernatural beings is ultimately irrelevant to evolutionary theory.
Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:
Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and times helps religious believers focus on transcendental values and/or the existence of the supernatural. Some atheists may have things, places, or times which they treat as "sacred" in that they venerate them in some way. Does evolution involve such a distinction? No — even a casual reading of explanations of evolutionary theory reveals that it involves no sacred places, times, or objects. Distinctions between the sacred and the profane play no role in and are as irrelevant to evolutionary theory as they are to every other aspect of science.
Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:
If people believe in something sacred, they probably have rituals which are associated with that which is considered sacred. As with the very existence of a category of "sacred" things, however, there is nothing about evolution which either mandates such a belief or prohibits it. Most important is the fact that there are no rituals which are part of evolutionary theory itself. Biologists involved with the study of evolution engage in no incantations or ritual acts of any sort in their research.
Moral Code With Supernatural Origins:
Most religions preach some sort of moral code and, typically, this code is based upon whatever transcendental and supernatural beliefs are fundamental to that religion. Thus, for example, theistic religions typically claim that morality is derived from the commands of their gods.
Evolutionary theory does have something to say about the origins of morality, but only as a natural development. Evolution does not promote any particular moral code. Morality isn't irrelevant to evolution, but it plays no fundamental or necessary role.
Characteristically Religious Feelings:
The vaguest characteristic of religion is the experience of "religious feelings" like awe, a sense of mystery, adoration, and even guilt. Religions encourage such feelings, especially in the presence of sacred objects and places, and the feelings are connected to the presence of the supernatural. The study of the natural world can promote feelings of awe in scientists, including evolutionary biologists, and some are led to their research by feelings of awe about nature. Evolutionary theory itself, however, does not explicitly endorse any sort of "religious" feelings or religious experiences.
Prayer and Other Forms of Communication:
Belief in supernatural beings like gods doesn't get you very far if you can't communicate with them, so religions which include such beliefs also teach how to talk to them — usually with some form of prayer or other ritual. Some who accept evolution believe in a god and therefore probably pray; others don't. Because there is nothing about evolutionary theory which encourages or discourages belief in the supernatural, there is also nothing about it which deals with prayer. Whether a person prays or not is as irrelevant in evolution as it is in other fields of the natural sciences.
A World View & Organization of One’s Life Based on the World View:
Religions constitute entire worldviews and teach people how to structure their lives: how to relate to others, what to expect from social relationships, how to behave, etc. Evolution provides data people may use in a worldview, but it is not a worldview itself and doesn't say anything about how to organize your life or incorporate knowledge of evolution into your life. It can be part of theistic or atheistic, conservative or liberal worldviews. The worldview a person has is ultimately irrelevant in the study of evolution, though one's study won't go far unless one uses a scientific and naturalistic methodology.
A Social Group Bound Together by the Above:
Few religious people follow their religion in isolated ways; most religions involve complex social organizations of believers who join each other for worship, rituals, prayer, etc. People who study evolution also belong to groups which are bound together by science generally or evolutionary biology in particular, but those groups are not bound together by all the above because none of the above is inherent in evolution or science. Scientists are bound together by their scientific and naturalistic methodology as well as their study of the natural world, but that alone cannot constitute a religion.
Bryan, does it matter whether evolutionary theory is a religion or not? It appears to matter a great deal to those who make the claim despite the fact that doing so misrepresents religion, evolution, and science generally.
Are you simply unaware of the differences between religion and science? Perhaps you are, especially given how you use very simplistic definitions of both religion and science, but I suspect that many leaders of the Christian Right are not so ignorant. Instead, I think they are arguing in a deliberately disingenuous manner in order to blur the distinctions between religion and science.
Over the years, science has forced the revision or abandonment of many traditional religious beliefs. People think that there need be no conflict between religion and science, but so long as religion make empirical claims about the world we live in, conflict will be inevitable because that's precisely what science does — and most of the time, science's answers or explanations contradict those offered by supernatural religions. In a fair comparison, religion always loses because its claims are consistently wrong while science consistently expands our knowledge and our ability to live well.
A more honest approach would be to acknowledge that while non-religious themselves, science generally and evolutionary biology in particular do make challenges on many religious beliefs. This forces people to confront those beliefs more directly and critically than they might otherwise have done. If those beliefs are sound, then believers shouldn't be concerned about such challenges. Avoiding these difficult issues by pretending that science is religious does no one any good.
Anonymous,
The theory of evolution is like a small child who observes a mud puddle. When he first sees this mud puddle, it contains only water and mud. A fun splash, and off to more interesting things. Some days later, the child comes across the same puddle again and to his suprise, the puddle has small tadpoles swimming around in it. He makes note of this and returns from time to time. Under his observation, the tadpoles grow legs and their tails disappear until finally they emerge from the puddle as frogs. For years the child believes that frogs come from little fish that spontaneously generated from the mud, until finally through research, observation and learning (the research and observations of others), he discovers the truth.
Charles Darwin observed "natural selection". The changes inside a species that can also be called micro-evolution. In his case, the change in the beaks of finches was the specific example. Finches with long thin beaks would be predominate in some years, under specific conditions, then in other years the finch population would be dominated by birds with short thick beaks. However, they never strayed beyond certain limits and they always remained finches (even to this day). So, he made the same leap of logic as the child above, and figured that if changes occurred within a species, then why not across species? Of course, he knew nothing about genetics and DNA; nor was he aware of the amazing complexity of the smallest parts of living cells. Biology is growing up, and is quickly finding the child-like theory of evolution to be too simple. It fails under observation.
By the way, was it really necessary to reprint one of the about.com articles (http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofscience/p/ScienceReligion.htm) on athieism? I should think a link would suffice.
As for the content of the reposted article, I agree that in order to call atheism a religion, one should define what is meant by the word religion. I like the definition of religion as "man's attempt to reach God". Devoutly religious people try to earn God's favor in some manner, typically by "doing right" and/or working very hard. The vaguely religious people figure as they go through life, as long as their good outweighs their bad, that they will be fine. Atheists have decided just not to play at all.
In many ways, the atheists choice is better! According to God, (as documented in the Bible) our dependance on our works can only hinder our acceptance of the free gift of eternal life through belief in Christ Jesus. The atheist is halfway there, not depending on his own self-righteousness to reach God, he needs only recognize that he is denying the obvious, and then come to terms with that revelation.
Voltaire once claimed that within a generation Christianity would be dead, and within 100 years the Bible would be lost and forgotten. Ironically, within 50 years of his death, his house was converted to a Bible print shop. It is science (man's accumulated knowledge) that changes over and with time. The Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament have easily withstood the tests of time unlike any other books, teaching, or ideas. The evidence is out there should you honestly wish to research it.
Father God, open our eyes to the truth.
Bryan-
Again, you say "the theory of evolution fails", as you said in your earlier post that "all of the predictions that the the theory of evolution claimed have been proven false", but again, you show no references, and no proof to support your allegation. Just because you think that it does, does not make it so. You further show by referring to it as "child-like" that you really don't know very much at all about it.
If you are going to try to effectively refute the theory of evolution, you should have a better understanding of what it is you are trying to refute.
As a start, you should read about some of the current research going on discovering the mechanisms of the HOX gene, which appears to show how multi-legged animals evolved into 6 legged insects with minimal chromosomal changes. Much closer to reality than your little mud puddle scenario.
One of the wonderful things about science is that as we discover more, we learn from those things and change our thoughts.
Still waiting for you to explain exactly how the theory of evolution fails,
BF
Here is an excellent website to explore full of the infomation that you seek.
http://www.drdino.com/
The theory of evolution fails because...
there is zero fossil evidince of transitional species though millions were predicted.
there has never been any observed instance of a gain in DNA information, though this is extremely vital to the proposed processes of evolution.
at the microcellular level, there exists such complex designs that they defy attempts to explain how they possibly could have evolved piecemeal.
there are so many creatures with unique biological features that also defy attempts to explain how they could possibly have arrived piecemeal.
The universe simply isn't large enough to contain the chance that a living cell could have come about through randomness. The number that has been calculated is so close to infinite that it really doesn't mater.
Evolution is dead. Let it go. It stands in the way of real scientific progress. It belongs in the list with phologiston theory, aether, and the caloric theory and all the other defunct ideas that scientists have used in the past. They had their part in the expansion of human understanding, but then became a snag as the entrenched scientists were loath to surrender their pet ideas in the face of obvious evidence, much like the modern evolutionist.
I've deleted the prior comment due because it was merely an ad hominem attack.
If you have something on topic to add to the conversation, please continue.
Dr. Hovind's conviction related to poor buisness practices (see http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=136) does not alter the validity of his arguments.
(As a somewhat biased person, this looks more like persecution than prosecution to me... but I admit I do not know the full story.)
Anyway, another interesting link that I would recommend is the Conservipedia article on the Theory of evolution.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution
As for your son's pet turtle...
Let the heaven and earth praise Him, the seas, and every thing that moves in them. (Psalms 69:34)
Let them praise the name of the LORD, For He commanded and they were created. (Psalms 148:5)
Let every thing that has breath praise the LORD. Praise the LORD! (Psalms 150:6)
Bryan,
Glad to see the blog is still alive and kickin'.
On youth ending at 40. . .you may be right with respect to this world, but if you take an eternal perspective, you can argue that you're always young!
BF,
Were'd you go? This was just getting interesting.
Post a Comment
<< Home