Sunday, April 20, 2008
|
|
Expelled!
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
7:26 PM
|
It was a rainy afternoon in DC, so I took this opportunity to see Ben Stein's new movie, Expelled. The TV ads for the movie make it appear to be a comedy. In fact, it is a well-produced documentary on the topic of Intelligent Design.
Because Stein is a pop-culture icon, a rebel, and an intellectual, he is perhaps the perfect candidate to challenge the surprisingly closed-minded nature of many in the scientific community. This film does just that.
In the documentary, Stein interviews many highly-qualified and intelligent proponents -- and opponents -- of Intelligent Design. Ultimately, it becomes apparent that many of the opponents of Intelligent Design are really opponents of religion.
For example, one "expert" actually admits to Stein that it is possible that we were created by Intelligent Design -- so long as the advanced designers were themselves created by the big bang theory (In other words, so long as God wasn't involved, it is possible that there was a creator).
Stein, on several occasions, asks these highly-qualified and respected scientists to explain precisely how life began. Each of them struggles tremendously with this challenge, and none of them is able to offer a coherent explanation of how something came from nothing. After watching this movie, the line that it takes more faith to believe in Darwinism than in Creationism rings true.
The film also succeeds in demonstrating that "ideas have consequences, " and that the ideology of Darwinism is a slippery-slope that ultimately undermines the value societies place on life. I'm reading Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascists" right now, and a major premise (in fact, a chapter is devoted to it) is that Darwinism's world view ultimately led to eugenics (which, at the time, was also championed by the "scientific community"). This movie makes the same point. My hope is that, because of Stein's mainstream appeal, this very important point will gain an even wider audience.
In short, this is a thought-provoking movie that is sure to arouse anger from the Left.
|
|
|
we watched the 11th Hour this evening, which describes life as coming from a single cell, which coincidentally is as difficult to prove as the idea of a talking snake! |
|
|
Unfortunatly Darwinism is allowed to be viewed as outside the relm of religion. If it were restricted in the educational industries of Americana as theological. However the debate on this issue is the same as many others. We have too many McCains who want to reach across the ile and give our principals away at the same time getting nothing in return. For this to ever be effective Conservatives have to quit pretending they are better than everybody. We are ALL created equal for good or for bad. We all have the same ability to error. But when someone on our side does from a "higher" moral position everything they have done is discredited on the other side since they are not held to the same standard the are allowed a public forum for their faith in anything. |
|
Excellent post, Matt.
Unfortunately, people just aren't going out to see the film, according to preliminary box office results.
If every conservative who rails against Hollywood or who rails against the culture in general, would actually back up their complaints by throwing down a little money to go see a film like this, then it would make it EASIER to get similar-themed films financed in the future.
Also, it is particularly important for people to go see a film on its opening weekend because the opening weekend box office numbers have a lot of influence regarding whether or not the picture opens in more (or fewer) theatres during the ensuing couple of months. |
|
|
I never really saw what all the fuss was about how we got here. I think the important thing is what we do now. It changes nothing either way. It has been the same since the beginning of time. You have to believe what I believe or you are going to hell, well everyone wants to go to Heaven but no one wants to die. If God did create everyone in his image, we are in a world of sh##t. We are doing a great job of taking care of one another. |
|
|
|
|
I liked your post. It does matter what we do now. After watching the 11th Hour and other films like it, my argument is that it is better to be safe than sorry....no matter your view on creation or evolution. This is our home and we can live nowhere else, that we know of. So why do we pride ourselves so much on having nice bricks and mortar but give no thought to the ground that it sits on? If god did create the earth then we are its stewards. If god does not exist then this is still our home and we should respect it and make sure it survives for future generations. |
|
|
The movie was very good. I think the larger theme, however, is not evolution vs. intellignent design. It is the stifling of thought and speech. The liberals will go to any length to stifle contrary points of view, including blackballing and name calling. Beware of the liberal "openmindedness" and "toleration" claims. They cannot stand or tolerate intelligent responses that confront them with a contrary viewpoints. |
|
|
Man will never know the answer. I'm to the right of Attila the Hun,but evolution seems more logical than ID. |
|
|
Would you say that your understanding of ID comes more from the proponents of it or the opponents? |
|
Many years ago there was a wise man named Darwin. He travelled many miles to far away islands to learn about how we got here. From observing animals he had never seen before he was inspired to tell this tale:
Man came from monkeys who appeared on the earth. The most attractive monkeys dated each other and eventually learned how to tune an engine and write poetry.
A slightly more complex scientific explanation is that Nature selects both randomly AND purposefully. That is to say, most creatures do what they need to do to survive but, every now and then for no good reason, they will do unexpected things to survive like buying ab rollers and time shares. This is the story of Life. Amen.
Other wise men, after the Great Darwin, also thought about what they'd learned. They figured that the monkeys came from a giant pool of slime. Eventually, the monkeys got tired of swimming as well as wet fur, and walked on land.
These wise men also discovered that the slime pool came from an explosion that came from nothingness. They called the nothingness, which either did or did not exist, "matter" and "anti-matter". These two non-existent "things" or "energies" existed side by side without running directly into each other for who knows how long. One day, in a 1/567894838902-0q of a second, they bashed into eachother and formed everything needed for Life. Word of Big Bang. Amen. |
|
|
Evolution and Intelligent Design are not necessarily incompatible. It is philosophical naturalism that makes the assumption that there is no designer and never has been. As for me, I don't think "chance", which is a non-entity, makes anything, no matter how much time goes by. |
|
All most of us want is open dialog. Would love to overhear conversations in academia when they discuss why stifling conversation is a good thing.
Don't want people to think, do we?
Great job Ben |
|
|
Darwins's hypothesis of evolution,(it cannot be a theory, according to the definition of the scientific method,) was the answer to the prayers of the skeptics who needed something which could forever render God unnecessary. It is a foolish idea without even a fossil record to substantiate it. If you think that there is a fossil record of transitional, evolving organisms then I must disappoint your brainwashed mind and correct that false assumption. Evolution cannot die because it is kept on life support by people who are atheists first and scientists second. |
|
|
How life could evolve from inanimate matter was explained in George C. Williams' 1966 classic Adaptation and Natural Selection. Other scientists have articulated on this subject in numerous peer-reviewed scientific journals since then. I have not seen Ben Stein's movie, but I can say this for sure: If he does not address those ideas and experiments, then he has not made a serious attempt to delve into the question. If he has not made such an attempt but claims that science has no answer to this question, then he is intellectually dishonest. Does he address those ideas in his movie, Mr. Lewis? |
|
Incidentally, Darwin shipped crate after crate of fossils home to England from his voyage to South America. According to the authors of Darwin: A Life in Science, he had "1383 pages of geology notes, 368 pages of zoology notes, a catalogue of 1529 species in spirits and 3907 labeled skins, bones and miscellaneous specimens..." from his Beagle voyage. He went into the jungle for months at a time with his rifle, hunting his own food, digging fossils with his bare hands, and capturing animals for specimens. When he got back to England, he farmed out his specimens to experts for characterization. He conducted experiments on his specimens. He analyzed the data for years and formulated his theory, which he eventually wrote up in his famous The Origin of Species. He wasn't some sissy in an armchair with a bad attitude. He was a serious scientist.
Stop with the evolution denying, loons. |
|
What is ID? Is it a theory of everything. What's the practical application of ID in the real world? What experiments are done using ID? Please don't mention Darwinism.
|
|
You write: "In the documentary, Stein interviews many highly-qualified and intelligent proponents -- and opponents -- of Intelligent Design. Ultimately, it becomes apparent that many of the opponents of Intelligent Design are really opponents of religion."
So is Intelligent Design science, or religion?
Science postulates rules which govern the world, and that these rules can, at least in principle, be learned. Religion postulates an entity outside the rules of nature, capable of overriding these rules at whim. Is there anything *except* religion to ID, or were all the people who swore in court that ID is science -- and only science -- are purjurers?
You write: "For example, one "expert" actually admits to Stein that it is possible that we were created by Intelligent Design -- so long as the advanced designers were themselves created by the big bang theory (In other words, so long as God wasn't involved, it is possible that there was a creator)."
The difference between God and designers "created by the big bang theory" is that designer "created by the big bang theory" are constrained to follow the rules of nature. God, by definition, is not. If ID invokes a force which cannot be accounted for in the laws of nature, it's not science. It's either religion or fiction. Take your pick. |
|
One thread I detect running through the commentary in and about "Expelled" -- indeed, the whole evolution / Intelligent Design / creationism mess is that if I don't swallow Intelligent Design, I'm deemed Not A True Conservative. The fact that I voted for Bush twice, and vote for many conservatives in spite of their ignorance about science, is not enough. I accept evolution, therefore I'm a DarwiNazi, and not a Conservative.
Frankly, folks, if that's enough to get me thrown out of the ranks of the True Conservatives, maybe you don't need my vote in November.
I can't bring myself to vote for whichever candidate the Democrats put up, but I can stay home, or hang out with people who are willing to listen to my opinions and not mock them. |
|
The science community has become hypocritical as they conduct censorship on scientific discoveries merely because the evidence supports an intelligent designer. I never see these people waging massive protests against leprechauns, unicorns, tooth Fairy's yet they who claim not to believe in God's existence have declared an unholy war against Him to the point they will "invent science of the gaps" whenever the evidence does not line up their preconceived ideas in a Darwinian world view. I see more evidence that Atheists really don't exist. I believe all ideas and research should come to light.
What's really happening is that many in the science community are being exposed for their past injustices and hypocrisies. For years the public has not been aware of the censorship no matter how hard people have been exposing the information because the atheists and secular humanists have created an artificial intellectual wall based on past deceptions.
The point is that people can be a scientist and make discoveries, find cures for diseases, and solve problems without adhering to Darwinian theology.
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com/#facts_about_evoluti on
|
|
There was more to the movie. The ability to "disagree" and to "agree to disagree" no longer exists in many areas.
You either regurgitate the P.C. dogma, or your "survival" is limited. Be it in an academic setting, or the workplace. There are a few exceptions but those are very limited.
I am "tired" of walking on egg shells and dancing among "trip wires." |
|
Creationism is distinct from ID, because Creationism works from the idea that the Bible is true, and then uses that philosophical presupposition to evaluate any data or information that is discovered in the scientific world.
Intelligent Design argues, philosophically, from the idea that any time we see specific complexity, as in information, we know that it is the result of intelligence. Whether that intelligence is God or not the ID proponents don't want to say.
Darwinists say that science, or more properly "Science", can only entail that with which we can observe and experiment. Since the supernatural world is not that which we can put into a test tube, then it doesn't enter into the study of "Science".
The Darwinists' problem is that they take a valid proposition (Science can only entail that which we can observe) and apply it to non-scientific philosophy (establishing normative behavior, etc.) In other words, the Darwinist wants to claim he speaks for "Truth", but when challenged, he retreats to the position that he only deals with data. He claims people are intellectually inferior for believing in God, but then says that his philosophy of Darwinism doesn't make any claims at all about God. |
|
"Stein, on several occasions, asks these highly-qualified and respected scientists to explain precisely how life began. Each of them struggles tremendously with this challenge, and none of them is able to offer a coherent explanation of how something came from nothing."
Just because something, at this time, cannot be explained does not mean it has a non-natural cause. If something happened in the natural world, it has a natural cause.
Also, the statement that "something came from nothing" makes an unwarranted assumption, that being that "something" is a thing. So the question at this point is not meaningful and perhaps even wrong. |
|
If you want to see a really good movie about the Darwin/Intelligent Design controversy, see "Flock of Dodos" (2006).
Unlike "Expelled," this movie is a balanced and genuinely warm look at both sides of the controversy.
http://www.flockofdodos.com/
|
|
|
It is unfortunate that our freedom-loving country is hushing the freedom of debate in orgin science. |
|
A few thoughts for fodder:
-As I recall Darwin said nothing about how life started, big bang or otherwise.
-If you can't envision something (or nothing) before the big bang, how can you envision it before god existed?
-As someone else mentioned creationism bases everything on the correctness of the bible. A book full of inconsistencies and errors, all of which the apologists have tried to explain away.
-1000 years from now, there will be books that still relate the story of santa claus. Will the fact that the story is 100 years old make it any more true?
-Most scientific folks don't mind having religion in schools... just not in the science classroom. It does not follow scientific principles. If we wish to have our children compete on the world stage, they shouldn't be taught that a miracle is a valid scientific process.
-oh, and there's a great new article on scientists that have recently mapped the genome of the platypus - part reptile, part bird, part mammal.... hmmmm
Help me out here ID-ers....
|
|
|
|