Friday, April 18, 2008

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Super Trailer)


I heard about this movie on the radio today and I thought it sounded interesting. Here is a clip of it. It tackles the theory of evolution vs. intelligent design. Why not study both as legitimate "theories" in science?

27 comments:

namaste said...

hey nikki, this looks very interesting! another truthseeker like me.

:)

~m

Karen said...

My husband saw a commercial promoting the movie this evening and mentioned he would like to see it. It has a lot a buzz around it right now.

Freadom said...

Great. As you say, this is exactly why I love blogging. Nobody knows all the answers, not you, not me, not the smartest scientist in the world. That is why it is so important to be open minded to all the theories, and why all theories should be equally considered at home, by teachers, and in politics.

Khaki Elephant said...

Of course, the argument will be that intelligent design is not a theory. I've always felt that those so afraid to consider creationism in the classroom are terrified of its implications. A God who is interested in this planet brings the weight of spiritual obligation that many modern academics don't want to face. People live different lives when under the eye of God.

Political Realm said...

As a Christian, I do believe in a creator God (though not exactly as it's laid out in Genesis). However, intelligent design really is bad science as far as science goes. I'm not saying evolution is perfect or perfectly provable, but intelligent design is rather easily disproved.

I am interested in the movie though.

Political Realm said...

I should add that I'm talking about intelligent design as it's laid out as a theory, not about design by an intelligent being in general.

Nikki said...

WOW great response! Thanks everyone!

Maria, Ben Stein was on a radio show today and he was very funny and it intrigued me...let me know if you see it or rent it in the future. :)N

Hey Karen, they were saying today that hopefully it can beat Farhenheit 9/11 and an inconvienient truth but of course Hollywood would probably never recognize it. Thanks for the comment! :)N

Freadom, I believe you have made that same point about global warming...why not another point of view? And I agree with you wholeheartedly! :)N

Khaki, Hopefully some of my little scientist atheists will appear and help me at least understand the debate better. I admit to being ignorant when it comes to science. While I appreciate science and what it does in medicine and other areas, when it comes to answering the question of "the meaning of life" I close my mind. :)N

P-Realm, YAYYYY first let me say thanks for the comment!! You have one of my favorite blogs! I am curious about this movie and what it says about the theory, it does touch on the fact that it may be provable contrary to what you say. What I think is interesting is the fact that science is always trying to disprove the Bible. scaredy cats..hehe! :)N

Mike said...

Nikki, the problem with so-called Intelligent Design is that from what I've read of it, its proponents never formulate a falsifiable hypothesis. The main rule of science is that in order for a hypothesis to be valid, it must be disprovable. How would one disprove "God did it"? How would a scientist recreate God creating anything? ID is a belief system, not science.

The funny part of ID is that any Christian who pushes it (and I've never seen a non-Christian proponent of ID) has basically denied their own religious beliefs in the name of back-dooring Creationism into our schools. The main difference between Creationism and ID is that the creator in ID is not necessarily God. ID's backers took God out in order to make it seem more legitimate than Creationism. ID, they claim, theorizes that the universe could have been created by something other than the Christian God of the Bible. Well, if it's even possible that that's the case, then the Bible is not true, and God doesn't exist.

Hmm... That's probably not the result the IDers had in mind.

I'll watch that movie when it comes to Netflix. This is not a free-speach issue, no matter how much Ben Stein wants to make it out to be. Scientific journals are not required to print every article that is submitted to them, especially if they don't actually deal with science.

ba and the boys said...

this looks good, but i know i will want to talk when the movie is on, so i will red box-it. that way i can pause and argue/agree with it and go on. (if i get a sitter and pay im going to see a comdey or mathew mcconahey's chest!)

Khaki Elephant said...

Oh, I don't think ID is an exclusively Christian issue. In fact, I suspect if ID ever does make its way into the classrooms and laboratories it will be through Muslim pressure.

Nikki said...

Hey Mike, I am wondering who the other possible "Intelligences" are that may not be "God". Zues maybe? Just asking...:)N

BA...Documentries should not be viewed during birthday week period!! See something with Will in it even if you have seen it a thousand times!:)N


Khaki...I was excused for 1 hour everyday in High School to go to Mormon seminary...if there is a will there is a way! :)N

Mike said...

Khaki, I would be surprised to see any Muslims sign on to the ID cause. The basic requirement of ID is that one must acknowledge that their god might not have created the universe. I don't see Muslims jumping on that wagon. The only reason that Creationists do is because their brains are too small to realize they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Nikki, ID doesn't specify a deity. It could be Zeus. Could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I suppose.

Nikki said...

LOL!...very funny Mike! :)N

DB said...

There is an inherent problem with faith in terms of belief when you establish a set criterion of evidence to prove that god exists. The question is, Is it a good thing to establish a set of theories or hypothesis' to validate claims of faith that will be tested with the possibility of being disproved? Is it ok for faith to allow theories based on evidence to support it's belief structure when those theories can be used against faith, or otherwise distract from that which faith implies? Faith doesn't by definition and shouldn't require evidence, and quite simply, competing with scientists in a peer-review oriented field opens faith based on evidence up to criticism and disbelief. The easier battle for faith to win is the one maintained against the evidence, without evidence. Otherwise, it would not be called faith. Mike is absolutely right that ID sidesteps Christianity and opens the door for any "god" to be a possibility.

None of my above argument has to do with the fact that ID is based on gaps in science that get filled eventually. ID finds those gaps and claims the reason is God. Every time a gap gets filled, ID takes a hit by for coming up with a scientific conclusion. ID is not as great as fundamentalist Christians lead you to think. In this matter, I think Creationism is the only alternative to real science that allows room for the Christian God. ID is a threat to Christianity in the long run.

Khaki Elephant said...

God of the gaps. You're right, that argument does more harm than good.

Anthony Palmer said...

The problem with ID lies with the definition of science. Here's the definition from Merriam-Webster:

"Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method."

You can't really prove that God did X or Y because religion is based on faith, not science. You can believe that God did those things, but you can't prove it. Therein lies the difference between theology and science.

I'm not saying I don't believe in ID, nor am I saying I don't believe in creationism. I'm just saying that creationism cannot be addressed by science as we currently define it. We cannot use scientific tests to measure or explain creationism. We simply have to believe it. That's not science.

Personally, I think ID vs. evolution is a wedge issue that is best left for individual school boards to decide. And introducing this Christian explanation into the classroom would set a dangerous precedent in my mind because imagine the reaction if followers of another religion wanted to have their religion's teachings introduced as "science" in a classroom. We'd hypocritically accuse them of trying to force their religion down our throats.

Nikki said...

DB...I would submit to you that religion is not always based on faith. There are eyewitness accounts of seeing God by prophets in the Bible and other scripture. There is also a scripture in Malachi that says "prove me now herewith" that I think alludes to God himself challenging mankind to theoretically prove his doctrines or commandments as proof of his existence. Truth is what we are after, not theory. Science only offers theory and not always truth when it comes to answering mans most sought after question of the meaning of life and where do we go after this life. Truth is things as the are and faith is things hoped for which are not seen...there are those who have claimed to have seen, is that not evidentiary? :)N

Anthony, I think your point is well taken regarding which version of creationism is taught from which religion, and the potential complications of it. Though I think most Judeo-Christian religions and muslim religions believe in the first 5 books of Moses including Genesis. I just think that most parents interested in their kids learning ID have already taught it to them or they attend some sort of Sunday School. I remember being taught the big bang theory and evolution in High School and I didn't think anything of it. I just felt informed. I don't think religious people should be afraid or necessarily are afraid of science with regards to evolution, but I see the point that all sides of an argument should be taught, just like with global warming. :)N

DB said...

Again, the concept of "theory" is mistaken and is an anti-science talking point. Scientists call everything a theory simply because they are always seeking more and more answers. Science is never finished nor complete, conclusions are never met. Science isn't looking for the subjective "why" life is, rather the objective "how" life works.

I am sorry, but religion is based completely off faith. Just because some guy says he spoke with God, doesn't make it "truth." You have to take that on faith because it cannot be independantly verified without bias. Science is a peer-reviewed process. If someone's research cannot be verified and validated, it doesn't get published (the problem afflicting ID).

If you can't tell, I am back from my trip!

Rightwingsnarkle said...

"I admit to being ignorant"

Well, being honest with yourself is always a good start, Nikki.

Now, if you would just act on that belief...

Nikki said...

DB...I am glad you are back! Let's get posting on your page, I have been stalking it and I feel so alone. hehe.
We have talked about this before and I think Science is based on faith as well, as you know. I believe my faith is based on some factual evidence. I suppose I could document experiences that occur within the realm of obedience to a particular commandment. Psychology would of course explain away any found documentation I am sure, but I mentioned in my other thread about smoking...revelation forbad smoking for Mormons for health reasons in 1830, Science proved later on that smoking was harmful, isn't that proof that the revelation was true and at least came from the source greater than science? :)N

DB said...

Rightwing, Have you nothing better to do than troll blogs? Get a life.

I know we have discussed "faith" but I am taking a purely definitional approach to "faith" and "science." Science is in no way based on faith as it is peer-reviewed, tested and thrown into the public arena to be questioned, criticized, or validated. Religion won't do that, hence the term "blasphemy." Evidence is reached through the scientific process, whereas faith is reached through tradition and testimony. ID will ultimately lead more people to turn away from Christianity in the end than turn to it now. ID takes faith out of religion and is a threat to it.

Ya, time to get to my own page. McQ is MIA.

Rightwingsnarkle said...

"Rightwing, Have you nothing better to do than troll blogs? Get a life."

Well, I guess I should really take your advice to heart, considering the quality of your thoughtful post - and I'm taking a definitional approach to the term 'thoughtful,' namely "full of thoughts."

Though somehow the thoughts are not exactly - how should we say it? - logically connected or coherently expressed.

It's a tough issue, though - religion or science, science or religion?

Ah, fuck it - let's just toss a coin.

DB said...

/sigh

Nikki said...

DB...Your point about religion needing to be about faith is a good one. That is the best point of the thread...I suppose if there are those who have to "prove" intelligent Design, then what is the point of faith and religion when God in fact does expect belief without seeing. I stipulate the argument! :)N

Thomas said...

I would think Republicans would be all about science. Scientist invented whatever technology we are using to beat the terrorists. Our missiles go farther and do more damage because of our scientists.

And now we tell these scientists that we think what they do ain't that great after all. One day we won't have the best weapons anymore and I think we will have the current crop of Republicans to blame for that.

Nikki said...

Thomas that is clearly not the crux of the argument. It is about the creation of the earth and who created it or what exploded etc. Of course republicans believe in technology we all go to the doctor and let them savo our lives and watch TV and have ipods etc. Creationism and evolution are a debate in themselves. Thanks for the comment. :)N

Khaki Elephant said...

Thomas, I happen to be one of those who believes in creationism and evolution (as does the Catholic church and a number of protestant denominations). The two are not mutually exclusive. And when it comes to origins, neither has provided an answer that can be tested or repeated. I believe the point of Stein's flim is that there are a significant number of scientists who believe in ID, demonstrating that the two can co-exist within the same world view, but academia actively works to silence them despite that environment's claim to foster "diversity."