Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

I think it was some guy named Luke who was quoting a guy named Gamaliel.

 

It just happens that intelligent design was disproved since Darwin and there is no evidence whatsoever for intelligent design.

ID is just a ruse to keep the God door open in science and schools. Lack of evidence has led its proponents to use the usual denialist tactics like accusations of unfairness and misinformation.

 

Of course this was your impression. Just like how a real left-winger will always think Michael Moore is being "fair and balanced."

The thing that most scientists object to about ID is that it's promoted as "science," when there's really no scientific method that goes into it. It's just creationists trying to get their ideas about the origins of the universe taught in the public schools. As I said before, the problem is that the IDers already know "the answer," so any evidence that supports this "answer" is pushed to the forefront and any evidence that challenges this "answer" is ignored.

One of the standard ID arguments about "irreducible complexity" has to do with the flagella of microorganisms; they say that the flagella are incredibly complex, but that a simpler version of such a organ has no use to any organisms. Hence, it couldn't have evolved slowly over time. Evolutionary biologists thought about this and there has been some interesting explanations to suggest that this is *not* true; that the simpler versions do have a purpose. The IDers have largely ignored this evidence.

This is the big thing that drives scientists crazy about ID. Part of science is refining your theory or explanation as you get more evidence. Since the IDers already know "the answer," there's no need for them to revise their theories. This also allows them to needle the scientists when their theories evolve (no pun intended). They say, "See! They were wrong before, so they're probably wrong now!"

Again, this gets back to the public misunderstanding of science; they think of science as people just passing on "the facts," where in reality it is a field of discovery that is always changing.

Yeah. This is counterproductive, I admit, but I think it reflects the frustration that a lot of scientists feel with the ID movement.

Yeah. People are absolutely less likely to criticize something they agree with. So, it should be no surprise that the folks here are less likely to criticize Moore. I, for one, find his movies obnoxious and tired, even though I agree with many/most of is points.

Well, I can't say that this doesn't make me a little happy, although I can't help feeling that if it's your job to cover movies, you should probably at least take a look at this one.

Wait. So now you're denying that the producers used trickery to get the scientists to show up? I don't quite know what to say since the fact that they used trickery is well-established and even they themselves admit that the movie that they promoted to the scientists had a markedly different title than the one that was finally produced. Again, I'm not trying to say that the scientists didn't say the things that the producers said they said; just that editing can really be a miraculous thing.

Again, context matters. And smart people (i.e. the producers) can make hard questions seem very simple. There's one part of the movie that they've used in their promotional material where Dawkins appears stumped by a supposedly "simple" question. If you've heard Dawkins's explanation of it, it appears that it was basically just an editing trick (part of which was the moment when he realized he'd been tricked into doing an interview with creationists).

 

sure there are extremists in any group that can say things that don't represent the entire group... there are plenty of religious leaders that make the whole of religious groups look bad... does that make all religious people like them? no.

anyway, the basic point remains that intelligent design is not the same as science. betelgeuse hit it on the head when he said that they are only seeking evidence to demonstrate their point. [all of my questions about how there is *evidence* for an inherently non-provable being aside...] sooooo what do they do when they run across something that is counter to their expected result.

also, concluding that because we don't know something NOW means we will never know it, and that it must be a higher power, is counter to the pursuit of knowledge... which is what science IS.

 

Well I hope you are happy OP, I showed god this thread, and he just called, he is really pissed, he said he expected humans to evolve into intelligent beings, but that movie shows him that some of us didn't, so Ben Stein and the rest of the movie goers that believed that baloney are going to get the Universe turned around, and they don't get to go to Disney World. :eyebrows:

 

Maybe because ID is not science?

Remember the outcry that arose from the Church and society when Darwin finally released his theory? He spent time making sure it was bulletproof, because he knew he would be castigated for it and would have to prove every word and/or go to jail for it. (As it was, another person published the same claim shortly before Darwin, but Darwin's theory was more complete and more discussed.) So now we know you don't know science AND history.

After a point, you get tired of continuously disproving the same tired arguments (human and dinosaur tracks together! Evolution is a fraud!) Perhaps you've forgotten that all the ID claims have either already been disproven by science repeatedly, or are in the realm of unprovable?

That's something new to you? I've been aware of this concept as a scientific possibility for many years now. It's the basis of the Ringworld trilogy, by Larry Niven (first published 1970). Not too long after the meteor that possibly showed effects of life on Mars was found in Antarctica, the possibility was discussed of primitive life surviving the trip and "seeding" Earth millenia ago. Not a more highly evolved source than us, but still raises the possibility life came pre-formed from somewhere else.


As for me, I prefer to get my information from original research, not movies. My understanding of global warming does not come from "An Inconvenient Truth" or "The Day After Tomorrow", my understanding of evolution/ID does not come from "Expelled" or "1 Million B.C." and my understanding of plate tectonics does not come from "Volcano" (altho "Dante's Peak" wasn't so far off).

But if you want to reject evolution, that's fine. Just reject any portion (the majority) of modern medicine that depends on it at the same time. Then the IDer's will weed themselves out over time as they die off early, leaving fewer offspring

(BTW, I am not a godless commie. I am a regular churchgoer, and my church, like most, implicitly supports evolution. As does my dad, who is a conservative Methodist minister (a dying breed, these days).)

I feel kind of bad putting down a long-time PC contributor, one who ironically started me on protein-folding using spare CPU cycles, but you're the one who brought up this inane subject, so just remember, I'm attacking your idea, not you personally. Hate the sin, not the sinner, all that.

 

But if you want to reject evolution, that's fine. Just reject any portion (the majority) of modern medicine that depends on it at the same time. Then the IDer's will weed themselves out over time as they die off early, leaving fewer offspring


I thought I'd throw these out for thought/comments: The url relates to a well respected Oxford philosopher:

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07110203.html


Aldous Huxley made this remark in his work, "Ends and Means," p. 270:

‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’
​

 

Watching Ben Stein demonstrate his ignorance is not interesting.

 

Many of us do not have to take a bite from a cowflop to recognize it as sh!t.

 

Never understood why they called it Intelligent Design to begin with, there is nothing intelligent about the concept or the belief.

 

What you've said here is simply not true. If you're not receptive to an argument on this, there's really no more substantive discussion that can be had on this point. Others have pointed it out, but just to reiterate the points, ID is not falsifiable, it doesn't make predictions, and it mostly just consists of pointing out perceived problems with evolution. In that very important way, ID is fundamentally different from Darwinian Natural Selection. One is a valid scientific theory and the other is not.

Note that I've made no claims about which is correct; I've only made claims about which is science.

 

Well, truth be told, I'm probably "one of them", but I can be honest about my viewpoint.

That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with looking for testing your belief against actual evidence. Granted, some ID'ers (like myself) sometimes do a poor job of it with creation (at least currently), but one of the most affirming things about my faith is doing the research to discover historical references to Jesus outside of the Bible. It's like, I didn't disbelieve in His existance, but something about seeing ancient historians mention Him really drove home the point: hey, He really does exist!

 

Oh, give it up, madcow. If you're going to be so condescending and downright insulting, you can hardly expect brilliant eloquence in return.

On the internet? Oh well, it must be true!
You can't even spell your own name.

 

Sigh. That wasn't a very mature display, was it? Sorry, kow, I lost my temper for a moment. Excuse me while I send myself for a time out.