Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[the iron horse]

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

[melon]

We've already had a thread on this.

It's a pathetic title, since "intelligent design," by nature, is anti-intellectual and anti-science.

Maybe we should start demanding atheism in church? We need to teach "both sides of the story," after all.

[coemgen]

Church isn't mandated. School is.

[the iron horse]

Originally posted by melon
We've already had a thread on this.

It's a pathetic title, since "intelligent design," by nature, is anti-intellectual and anti-science.

Maybe we should start demanding atheism in church? We need to teach "both sides of the story," after all.

I guess I missed the other thread.

I did post the link on a Sunday Dispatch several weeks ago.

[A_Wanderer]

Which is exactly why you cannot inject religion into it, that is mandating religion and as ID proposes a supernatural designer (and the chain of evidence linking it to the Creation Science movement and the Discovery Institute) it is religious and putting it in public schools is unconstitutional (it violates the establishment clause).

Natural selection does not teach children that God does not exist, but it does show the fact that the universe is as though there is no God.

This move seems like emotional drivel and it will appeal to a lot of people who make judgments based on pure emotion rather than weighing up the facts. There is no biological phenomena for which a designer hypothesis is better than the known evolutionary explanation.

[coemgen]

Simply saying God could possibly be behind everything or that it was all created, doesn't necessarily mean religion is in the classroom. It's simply part of someone else's theory.

That's the point of the documentary. There shouldn't be a monopoly of thought. That's not scientific, either.

[melon]

Originally posted by coemgen
Church isn't mandated. School is.

Yes, that's right. So go to school to learn facts and theory that the rest of the world has in common.

Then go to church to learn any sort of mythology you'd like to believe, whether that be Adam and Eve, a giant penis (a rather creative take on Shinto creation myths), or intelligent design.

[melon]

Originally posted by coemgen
Simply saying God could possibly be behind everything or that it was all created, doesn't necessarily mean religion is in the classroom. It's simply part of someone else's theory.

Again, this can be taught in church or a private religious school.

By the way, this is not intelligent design. By just stating that "God created evolution," that is evolutionary creationism/theistic evolution. Intelligent design creates a series of blatant falsehoods mixed with religion, then demands equal access in the classroom....just because they said so. Obviously, none of these people have any real knowledge of science, mainly because scientific theory is not determined by populism; it is determined by the evidence. Intelligent design has been thoroughly critiqued and disproven, even without having to address deus ex machina.

[coemgen]

Wait, we're supposed to accept a theory just because it's a common theory? So we check our brain at the door and ignore independent thought?

Too many people don't put faith in a theory. It doesn't answer everyone's questions, and many find holes in the theory. Why suppress other views? Isn't that what science has always fought against?

[DaveC]

Originally posted by coemgen
Simply saying God could possibly be behind everything or that it was all created, doesn't necessarily mean religion is in the classroom. It's simply part of someone else's theory.

Originally posted by coemgen
God

Even using the word "God" makes it about religion.

I also don't hear anyone who supports teaching creation "theory" in the classroom mention anything other than the Judeo-Christian myth. If it's simply about presenting "someone else's theory" then surely you can't object to the pupils being taught Hindu creation stories, right?

THAT is why any "intelligent design" crapola has no place in a classroom - you either present the religious beliefs in the context of anthropological study (and present 'em all, no matter how illogical), or not at all. Certainly NOT in science classes alongside natural selection.

How anyone honestly thinks religious theory has any place being taught alongside science (and placed on the same level) is beyond my mental capacity.

[A_Wanderer]

It isn't a theory, it is unsupported by the evidence. Natural selection explains the evidence better than other models, hence why it gets the distinction of being a scientific theory rather than a hypothesis, a difference that many don't seem to grasp.

A theory isn't a simple guess, it is the best workable model to explain the known facts. Over time new facts accumulate and theories are reinforced, modified or rejected on that basis. That form of self correction and progressive accumulation of knowledge is defining of science; ID may be a hypothesis (a weak one at that given it's 'prime cases' have been undone by new evidence - example being the unraveling of the evolutionary history of bacterial flagella) but since it is so weak, makes no predictions (it has trouble explaining how species originate - either they accept geological time and demand that a designer/designer has been operating for 3.4 billion years or their theory is at odds with geology and the atomic theory), has no element of progression (not one ID proponent seems to think they could understand the nature of this presupposed designer, it merely raises an impossible question as an answer to things that are already answered better).

Science isn't about a monopoly of thought, it is about having the right model because it gives your theory more power in the practical world. ID proponents come along without doing the hard yards of research, produce no new evidence, have PR backgrounds and a weak hypothesis and start demanding equal time. No fucking way; if their onto something and they clinch it they will have made a discovery possibly more profound than evolution (of course the original designer may well have been evolved).

[coemgen]

No it doesn't, DaveC. Religion is a set of beliefs. What if you said Creator, or intelligent being? It can still be used as a part of someone's line of thought on how things came to be in a general sense.

If Hindus want to speak their mind on it, go for it! Btw, Ben Stein isn't a Judeo-Christian.

[A_Wanderer]

Ben Stein Isn't Judeo-Christian?

“My confession:”

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don’t feel threatened. I don’t feel discriminated against. That’s what they are: Christmas trees.

It doesn’t bother me a bit when people say, ‘Merry Christmas’ to me. I don’t think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn’t bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a creche, it’s just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don’t like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don’t think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can’t find it in the Constitution and I don’t like it being shoved down my throat.

Yeah, not Judeo-Christian, riiight.

[coemgen]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
It isn't a theory, it is unsupported by the evidence. Natural selection explains the evidence better than other models, hence why it gets the distinction of being a scientific theory rather than a hypothesis, a difference that many don't seem to grasp. A theory isn't a simple guess, it is the best workable model to explain the known facts.

I understand that, but look at what you said: "it's the best workable model to explain the known facts." Like I said before, many people find holes in the theory. It doesn't explain everything to them, so for them, it's not the best workable model. It's hard for some people to accept. Why is it so wrong to not accept that? Then some people put both God and evolution together. That for them is the best workable model. Why not welcome more ideas and lines of thought into the discussion? That's all the movie is getting at, really.

[coemgen]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Ben Stein Isn't Judeo-Christian?Yeah, not Judeo-Christian, riiight.

He's not a Judeo-Christian. He's a Jew.

Read the first four words again.

[A_Wanderer]

Because God isn't an answer, it is an admission of ignorance but with the cowardice of not stating that you don't know. I am able to admit that I don't know how one type of species will survive during a mass extinction while another perishes, it is a very complicated question with scant evidence but I will not inject the illusion that God is either an acceptable explanation or a desirable one.

[coemgen]

No. This is not correct. It is an answer, acknowledging at the very least that it can't all be known. You just admitted that.

Look, Stein brings up some good questions. Here's a bit of an interview. If it's been posted before, I apologize:

Interviewer: I know of scientists who subscribe to Darwin's theory of evolution but also are people of faith, who believe in God, and don't find the two mutually exclusive. In the movie, I didn't see that perspective there, of people who might be both.

Stein: There are definitely people who are people of faith and have no problem with Darwinism. To tell you the truth, up to a very large point, I have no problem with Darwinism. I think Darwinism as a theory explaining evolution within species is incredibly brilliant, just unbelievably incredibly brilliant.

But, as a theory that explains everything in terms of evolution--in terms of development of life, it explains very, very little. Darwinism doesn't explain where gravity comes from. It doesn't explain where thermodynamics comes from. It doesn't explain where the laws of physics come from. It doesn't explain where matter came from.

To tie everything together, God seems like the only logical explanation.

[DaveC]

Originally posted by coemgen
No it doesn't, DaveC. Religion is a set of beliefs. What if you said Creator, or intelligent being? It can still be used as a part of someone's line of thought on how things came to be in a general sense.

"Faith" does not equal "belief" to you? Can I see the dictionary you've been using, it's different than all the ones I've ever seen. :scratch.

Originally posted by coemgen

He's not a Judeo-Christian. He's a Jew.

Read the first four words again.

I don't know whether to laugh, make fun of you, or feel sorry for you here.

I think I'll laugh, and hope (please, please, please) that you were being sarcastic.

[DaveC]

Originally posted by coemgen But, as a theory that explains everything in terms of evolution--in terms of development of life, it explains very, very little. Darwinism doesn't explain where gravity comes from. It doesn't explain where thermodynamics comes from. It doesn't explain where the laws of physics come from. It doesn't explain where matter came from.

To tie everything together, God seems like the only logical explanation. [/B]

When has anyone with half a brain ever said that "Darwinism" (which is a foolish term invented by religious-types who are trying to make it seem like it's blind faith on the level of religious belief to discredit the science behind it) has to explain gravity, or thermodynamics, or physics? They all have their own scientific laws to govern them, which have nothing to do at all with evolutionary theory/natural selection.

[anitram]

Originally posted by coemgen

If Hindus want to speak their mind on it, go for it!

Are you so naive to believe that the people pushing ID would welcome the Hindu myths of creation and destruction taught to their children?