Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

I am really looking forward to seeing Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." What a great title! Can you see the irony in that statement?

If not, then I invite you to view the movie trailer:

Click here to view trailer.

It will be interesting to see how the Darwinists try to spin their intolerance once people have seen the truth via this movie. Intelligent debate is being blocked by the elites whose shenanigans are a dismal attempt to try and silence those who want to expose them for who and what they are - fearful Darwinists.

Expelled the Movie opens April 18th, 2008

HT: Duane's Mind


Christinewjc said...

Oh my....

It appears that one of the "stars" in this movie is extremely upset about it!


Check out this blog post:

Big Science's Thought Police: Protesting Too Much.

And, there are 583 comments, too! Most of them are raging Darwinists with their panties...er...knickers in a twist!!


You would think that a supporter of academic freedom would welcome a well publicized point-of-view that challenged the reigning orthodoxy in his area of supposed expertise. And one would hope that a fair-minded associate professor would at least pay his readers and students the intellectual courtesy of seeing the film, before coming unglued over it in public. Apparently not. This is maybe the fifth time that the idle professor has written negatively about EXPELLED on his blogsite.

We wonder – why are the disciples of Big Science so unnerved by the mere prospect of a simple documentary film? What have they got to hide?

I like this:

Support Academic Freedom

We, the undersigned American citizens, urge the adoption of policies by our nation’s academic institutions to ensure teacher and student academic freedom to discuss the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution. Teachers should be protected from being fired, harassed, intimidated, or discriminated against for objectively presenting the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory. Students should be protected from being harassed, intimidated, or discriminated against for expressing their views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory in an appropriate manner.”

Signed it today!!

mike rucker said...

i'm interested in seeing this movie, but christine i hope you will no more blindly accept what it posits as 'truth' as you would what anyone says, science included.

when dawkins interviewed ted haggard - and, if you saw it, you probably said, "yeah! get him, ted! you're our man!" - but that was before you found out that ted wasn't only, uh, our 'man'... - it embarassed me when haggard told dawkins, "well, you obviously don't know much about evolution, sir." that's what i find the most irritation with: people who attack science - not just evolution - lacking years of training that others have. it's the same as someone attacking the bible who has never read it; what kind of response would you give to them, christine? you'd say they weren't qualified to enter the debate.

everyone seems to be an expert on everything these days, wouldn't you say? debate isn't civil, and is seldom objective. everyone has a dog in every hunt, whether they know anything about it or not.

mike rucker
fairburn, ga, usa

Duane said...

Thanks for the HT Christine and nice to hear from you again. I think Mike has a point too. We don't want to attack straw men. But often I find Darwinists think Christians are anti-science too. This is just not true. But certainly both sides seem capable of misrepresenting the others view pretty well.


Christinewjc said...

Hey Mike -

Just to let you know, I am re-posting your comment from the email bin so that I can convert it to a hyperlink. The reason for this is that posting a long link in the comment section often skews the entire blogpost down the page.

Here is Mike's comment:

here's something i found today:

Evolution vs. Creation: A Debate Gone Wrong.

mike rucker
fairburn, ga, usa

P.S. For those who might want to learn how to convert links into hyperlinks, here is what I did [Note: When creating one that you want to actually work online, you MUST ELIMINATE ALL OF THE SPACES that I purposely placed inbetween the words, slashes and the < and > marks...except for the ONE space between the a and the href].

Here's how it's written:

< a href = " http : // divineanointing .com /2008 /03 /05/ evolution-vs-creation-a-debate-gone-wrong /" > Evolution vs. Creation: A Debate Gone Wrong. < / a>

Remember, leave the space a href between the "a" and the "href" intact.

It was only after several months of blogging that someone showed this to me! I found it very helpful. Hope you do, too.

Christinewjc said...


It has been my experience that Evolutionists are the ones who often badmouth, ridicule, and outrightly dismiss the findings and beliefs of those involved with Creation Science and/or Intelligent Design. Rarely, if ever, have I heard of the opposite situation that apparently occurred at the Divine Anointing site!

As one commenter there asked, I would also like to know what information shared by the Creation advocate was so upsetting to the the audience!

Christinewjc said...

Hi Duane!

Your welcome!

Good point about Darwinists thinking that Christians are anti-science.

The fact that Mike apparently thinks that those who dispute certain aspects of Darwinism "aren't qualified to even get into the debate" is the kind of propaganda that automatically excludes both the findings and scientific papers of ID scientists; while keeping the errors of Neo-Darwinism out of the debate which lets them remain unchallenged.

The ridicule against Christians/IDeists/Creation Science is so extreme and obvious! The fact that they want to shut down ALL DISCUSSION in the schools about ID shows THEIR intolerance and rejection of following the evidence where it may lead!

As Ben Stein wrote over and over again on that chalkboard in the movie trailer -

Do not question Darwinism authority!


GMpilot said...

You don't test the validity of a scientific theory in a school, Christine. You test it in a laboratory, or in the field, where it can be checked, and double-checked, and even falsified. Evolution has passed this test; ID has not.
ID tells us that man was created by a Designer using processes that are no longer operating--just like "Scientific Creationism" tried to do back in the '70s. That's rather like saying that vinegar was a high explosive in 218 BCE, but it hasn't been since then.

Having failed where it matters--in scientific circles--and not doing too well in the courts either--ID is now seeking to win in the court of public opinion. Trouble is, scientific facts don't give a rat's ass about public opinion. They are what they are. Once, people tried to legislate the value of pi to a sensible 3.00. It didn't work, because pi is 3.1415926+ and always will be. When Ben and his party-crashing associates have ID down to something at least as inarguable as, say germ theory or nuclear fission, get back to me.

No, that won't be necessary, will it? EVERYONE will know!

BTW, what credentials does Mr. Stein himself have to argue this? I thought his specialty was economics, not biology. (And game shows, of course.)

"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." A good title--it's just one word too long.

mike rucker said...

The fact that Mike apparently thinks that those who dispute certain aspects of Darwinism "aren't qualified to even get into the debate" is the kind of propaganda that automatically excludes both the findings and scientific papers of ID scientists;

i've been misquoted here...

and, even if i hadn't, i would still bet dollars to donuts that the person in question - ted haggard - knew very little about evolution, or ID, or even what Genesis 1 and 2 say, for that matter.

my dog in this hunt is that creationists haven't looked at Genesis in years - they don't even know what it supposedly says anymore. they just have this "creation" or "ID" thing in their heads, they let science do all the footwork on analysis and discovery, and then they copy off of science's paper when the test is due and try to see how it fits in what they think "creation science" or "ID" might mean. not a single proactive, this-is-how-the-universe-came-about proposal comes out of these camps - why? because Genesis was never meant to be a science book. these "scientists" are constanly having to re-look at Genesis because scientific findings force them to change what the TEXT means.

i believe in God. i believe He had a strong had in the mechanisms on the earth. and while we can argue about what path evolution may or may not have taken, we know from the get-go - Genesis 1:1 - that the text is not an accurate explanation. God gave us that verse right off the bat to say, "Please, please, please - don't read this literally. You're embarassing yourself if you do - and worse, you're embarassing me."

Age of the universe ("the heavens"): ~14 billion years
Age of the earth: ~4.5 billion years

bottom line: the "heavens" and the "earth" were not created "in the beginning", unless the beginning lasted ten billion years.

which, of course, is EXACTLY what the Genesis literalists would start saying after they got this data - "well, the Hebrew 'beginning' doesn't really mean 'beginning', it means yada yada yada yada" - again adjusting how they interpret the TEXT to match what science has worked hard to determine.

while i don't think 'terminally unique' is an accurate moniker for me, i do have a different perspective than most: a strong right brain (creative, emotional, seminary degree, pastor's heart, rabbit's foot, etc.), an overly strong left brain (mensa IQ, software engineer, analytical to the point of suicidal...), and a recovering alcoholic to boot, which let me see that God was owned by no faith.

my seat in life rests on those three pillars. i don't come upon any issue where each of these doesn't have a part in the analysis.

but, of course, it's not the same "pillars" that the OT people thought held up their flat earth - anyway, they all later found out the earth was held up by turtles, right?

and what did the scientists of their day say was underneath the turtles?

isn't it obvious?

more turtles...

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa

Duane said...

Oh turn it up! Evolution has not been tested gm, come on! Unless you are playing bait and switch with words. Evolution, that is, the kind required to turn amoebas into amphibians etc... has not been "observed".

And on the age of the universe and earth thing, you can be sure of one thing... the scientists do not "know" how old it is. They KNEW 100 years ago that the earth was 2 billion years old and now they KNOW it's 4.6 billion? You can be sure that it will change again.

Don't trust man over God's Word. Of course the bible is not meant to be a science text book, but where it touches on scientific principles it can be trusted. That's one theological reason for not believing evolution (there are scientific reasons too of course) - God created things to reproduce after their kind, not for one kind to evolve and change into another kind over millions of years. This by the way, has NEVER been observed. The fossil record is used as support for this, but notice no-one SAW a dinosaur turn into a bird - to use one ridiculous example. Don't confuse interpretation of evidence, with the actual evidence itself. Don't be fooled into thinking that evolutionists have observed evolution. They haven't!

I on the other hand would say the fossil record if anything, is good evidence that there was a global flood for the judgement of sin just as God said. But apparently that kind of supposition isn't allowed because now God's in the mix. Now I didn't observe that either, but I am not claiming I did. I am only pointing out that it is a consistent interpretation of the evidence. The fossil record fits with a biblical worldview. Or, more appropriately, the Bible can explain the fossil record.

Thanks for letting me comment Christine

GMpilot said...

Dwayne claims: I ... would say the fossil record if anything, is good evidence that there was a global flood for the judgement of sin just as God said. But apparently that kind of supposition isn't allowed because now God's in the mix. Now I didn't observe that either, but I am not claiming I did. I am only pointing out that it is a consistent interpretation of the evidence.

I claim that "consistent interpretation of the evidence" supports evolution better, of course. At least you admit that no creationist (sorry, IDist) has ever seen creation happening, either. So, when we discover the existence of a new species in, say, the Amazon basin, does that mean that the ID is still out there, creating new stuff? Or do we sensibly conclude that the new organism has always been there, complete with a biological history, and we simply haven't known of it until now?

The bible "isn't meant to be a science text book"? You damned heretic. Haven't you been told that it is an inerrant text? that means it's right about everything it addresses, now and forever. Don't believe me? Ask our hostess, and she'll be happy to set you straight.

I stand by my statement: No intelligence.

Duane said...

How does evolution support the evidence better, if you can't even point to one example of a mutation that adds information to the genome gm? You haven't even established that evolution happens, let alone herald it as the better explanation. What we see happening is actually devolution, not evolution; the exact opposite of your claim. (By the way, devolution is consistent with a biblical wordlview.)

I suspect you know that natural processes and chance didn't carve/erode the Presidents faces into the side of Mount Rushmore just as well as you know that the level of information and complexity in living beings didn't arise by natural processes and chance. But if you want to chase after evolutionary fairy tales that's your business.

Re: New species. As an example gm, poodles are a fairly new dog species due to much cross-breeding. But in actual fact poodles are a genetic mess with many defects. Notice though that they are still dogs, even though I would never claim that poodles were originally created in the Garden of Eden. But it makes sense to suggest that they would certainly be descended from the dog kind. I actually don't think God is actively creating new species today, but I do know he created the original kinds (to reproduce after their own kind) with all the genetic information necessary for the diversity we see today. While the new species in the Amazon may have been there undiscovered since the beginning of time (or at least since the flood), it is also possible that such species are genetic descendents of animals already in existence - like the poodle. Discovery of a new species does not necessitate a new "creation" in the original sense.

WOW! I don't think I've ever been called a heretic by a pagan before? Do you even understand the bible and its purpose gm. It's true that it is not intended as a scientific text. But that does not mean that it doesn't talk about things that cross into the scientific field. Besides, if it were a scientific text, it would have to be updated every year to correct the errors they made based on new discoveries wouldn't they? Scientific texts are never ultimately and fully correct are they?

For the record, it is not heretical to say that the bible is not meant to be a scientific text gm. Proper bible study will make that clear. I actually agree with you that if it is inerrant (and being from God) then it must be correct in every area that it addresses, now and forever.

With that, I sense you will have another challenge for me?

Cheers mate,

GMpilot said...

Actually, Duane, there was no 'challenge' issued, but since you wish to accept it...

You mention species and kind in the same paragraph. Are you attempting to claim they are the same thing? If they are, why not use the same word?
Were timber wolves created in Eden, too? Because while they are a long way from poodles, they are closely related. (BTW, poodles being a 'genetic mess' has no meaning here--poodles are not mules, and they can produce offspring not only among themselves, but with other breeds. If they're dangerously inbred, that's another topic.)
If newly discovered species "are genetic descendents [sic] of animals already in existence", then evolution is what has been found...again.
You also mentioned "God". I take it then that you don't believe in ID? As I see it, IDists fall over themselves trying not to identify this "Designer", for if they do, it becomes religion...and religion has no place in a science class.

Get used to being called a heretic if you continue to cast doubts on the bible's alleged inerrancy (especially in the USA). Like similar texts (Bhagavad-Gita, the Analects, the Quran), I understand the bible's purpose to be to show mankind a path to better living, and particularly the path to whatever magical place that Christians are supposed to go to. And I'm not a pagan--I've never even owned a motorcycle!

No, science texts aren't updated every year to correct errors. Last I heard, pi was still 3.1415926+, the Earth still orbited the sun, and germs, not demons, caused disease. True, many scientific texts are not ultimately and fully correct, because our knowledge of the subjects is not complete. Still, that's better than a text claimed to be "inerrant" from the get-go, yet contains errors that must be 'reinterpreted' or otherwise explained away. If the bible contains even one error, then it is not inerrant. Period.

As a matter of fact, natural processes did carve/erode the Presidents' faces into Mt. Rushmore. It is perfectly natural for dynamite to go "boom" under proper conditions, and Mr. G. Borglum knew this. That's why he used dynamite to do the rough work. But there was little "chance' involved; Borglum knew exactly what to do to create a 50-foot nose and not a pile of rubble. But Gutson Borglum was an intelligent designer; we know he existed, we know his origins, we know what natural processes (which still operate today) he used to create the South Dakota monument. With ID...we ain't got that.
Your ball.


Duane said...

ok first up, I did not mean to imply that 'species' and 'kind' are the same thing. That's why I used a different word. 'Kind' is the broader category. And I never intended to imply that poodles were mules either. Rather, I meant that poodles are not 'created' in the biblical sense of the word. Likewise I don't consider myself 'created' in that sense either, but simply descended from Adam and Eve who most certainly were created – but with no genetic defects, and with all the genetic diversity for the human race to come. I don’t know if I can make it any clearer?

gm, please explain how the discovery of a new species that is descendant from animals already in existence, shows that evolution has occurred? This is where we find out if you and I have the same expectations where evolution is concerned. You seem to think that "change" (i.e. any change whatsoever) is evolution. I don't. My expectation is that the change must be in the same direction as required for amoebas to become amphibians, etc. Is that fair? I put it to you that every observable change is in the opposite direction you need for true evolution to occur. But I'll be more than happy to examine anything you have to offer on the subject.

I do believe in ID. But I identify that designer as the God of the Bible. You're right that IDists do not identify a designer. And that is a shortfall in their argument I think, because it allows for such things as panspermia, which only pushes the problem 'out there', so to speak. Funnily enough, many IDists do have a Christian worldview - I have heard them speak on it - but they are not arguing that way when it comes to ID. They argue simply on the basis of observation, pointing out that evolution is not an adequate explanation for life, while some sort of Intelligent fits the observations.

I am not sure myself if ID has made a cogent scientific case yet, but I find this to be a moot point. It does not take a scientific test to tell whether something is designed. According to the gatekeepers of modern science, evidence for intelligent design is untestable and unobservable (even though scientists test and observe evidence for intelligent design in other disciplines on a regular basis - e.g. Archaeology and the SETI Program), and therefore, ID makes a mockery of science. And yet it is perfectly acceptable for them to postulate theories that rely on everything popping out of nothing on its own (which, last I checked, goes against all known laws of science) or on multiple universes (which, by definition, we will never be able to observe). And how do they come up with these theories? Not from observations of what can be tested, but as logical extensions of their faith-based commitment to naturalism. Now that is an untestable theory based on faith, yet declared by 'law' (refer to recent Dover case) to be the only acceptable expression of science. Heaven forbid anyone should challenge or examine it.

It's funny that you say religion has no place in the science class (and I agree), but I actually don't think evolution belongs there either. I think it should be taught in philosophy. Further I think that churches can do a better job of arming kids with the knowledge they need to demolish the arguments that prevent people from coming to Christ.

Re: Pagan. I was defining it in this way. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pagan
For all intents and purposes, you are a pagan.

Re: This heresy nonsense. I am not sure where Christine and I differ on biblical authority or theology. From what I can tell, we aren't too different. But this is moot, bc this post has nothing to do with our theology.

You missed the point about Mount Rushmore. Did the dynamite evolve, place itself in just the right rock cavity and blow itself up? No of course not, you admit to this. But are you telling me that if you were to go to Mars and found a similar carved facial feature in the rocky outcrop, that you would have to conclude that it was not intelligently designed just because you don't know the designer or the designer’s origin? Puh-leeeease! Subsequently you think that because God doesn't reveal how he designed, what processes he used etc.., that we cannot conclude that living things are designed. I don't have that much faith mate? What natural processes caused DNA to exist, considering the information for the machines that carry out the instructions are themselves built into the DNA code. That's a chicken and egg problem for you. You cannot account for it from natural processes. Only by proposing the existence of a designer can we make sense of it.

So ID (I would say, God) is looking pretty feasible to me. If you have a better idea for how information arises from non-intelligent sources, let’s hear it?


GMpilot said...

"Kind" as used by creationists, is an extremely broad category. Now, it's been a while since I studied biology, but I do remember the system established by Linnaeus: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species. Are birds all of one "kind"? Hmmm...we have birds who fly well (eagle, albatross), birds who just fly (pigeon), birds who fly poorly (chicken), and birds who can't fly at all (emu, penguin). So what is the common thread that unites this "kind"? It sure ain't flight! Egg-laying? But reptiles do that too, and at least one mammal!
I hope you see where I'm going with this. If you could tell me exactly what "kind" corresponds to, that would be a big help.

In fact, I do think that "change" (i.e. any change whatsoever) is evolution. But evolution is change in populations over time, not individuals, as you seem to think. It is both very broad and very slow; it occurs in fits and starts across the whole world (not just one localized area), and it does not always move in a linear fashion. Sometimes, too, it dead-ends; no known Neanderthals are still with us (excluding certain members of the US Congress, perhaps).

"I put it to you that every observable change is in the opposite direction you need for true evolution to occur." Are you referring to entropy? That has a lot to do with physics, and nothing to do with evolution. But if that answer doesn't suit you:

The English peppered moth is often cited as an outstanding example of evolution at work. In fact, insects are a pretty good template because they have such short lives, which allows us to observe changes in their populations. The pesticide DDT, commonly used up to the 1950s, isn't used now largely because insect pests have developed (i.e. evolved) immunity to it. Probably ninety generations of flies and roaches have lived and died since 1958.

"I am not sure myself if ID has made a cogent scientific case yet, but I find this to be a moot point. It does not take a scientific test to tell whether something is designed."
Snowflakes are wonderfully dazzling in their patterns and variety, and untold billions of them fall somewhere every day. But if you propose to tell me that the ID is out there designing each and every snowflake that falls, I'll laugh in your face. You're not talking about design, you're talking about symmetry! That occurs all the time, and no ID (or God) is necessary to explain it.

"...are you telling me that if you were to go to Mars and found a similar carved facial feature in the rocky outcrop, that you would have to conclude that it was not intelligently designed just because you don't know the designer or the designer’s origin? Puh-leeeease!"
In New Hampshire there is an outcrop of rock that has the apparent profile of an old man's face. The "Old Man of the Mountain" is even commemorated on a US coin. There is a similar "Indian Head" rock in a cave in my native state, and there are probably others I don't know about. This is the equivalent of seeing recognizable shapes in cloud formations; it's romantic, and a nice way to pass the time, but it certainly does not imply intelligent design! If I find such a place on Mars and I find evidence of people nearby--remains of tools, perhaps, or the ruins of habitation--then we can talk about intelligent design.
Gutson Borglum (and his son) worked 12 years to build the monument on Mount Rushmore, but even with dynamite, they couldn't work on it 24/7. Wind and water, OTOH, never need time off, can get into places where chisels cannot, and have infinite time to do their work. No comparison.

"You cannot account for it [DNA] from natural processes. Only by proposing the existence of a designer can we make sense of it." That of course begs the question "Who designed the designer?" You don't really wanna go there, do you? The first cells had no DNA (Crick and Watson, 1953). They were simple forms, and they reproduced in a simple way--by division.

Back to you, ace.
And please do me a favor: If you're making a statement rather than asking a question, please refrain from putting question marks where they don't belong! It's confusing.


Duane said...

I tell you what gm. This blog entry is now well out of the sight of most. And personally I am interested in continuing the conversation among others who are willing to contribute.

Are you interested in continuing this conversation on my blog? I'll post a new entry and the history of this dialogue there, and we'll continue at it.

(and the peppered moths..? Are you serious? I'll deal with that later)

What say you?