If you want a quick laugh, click on the Jib Jab 51 second video (on right side at above link).
"Darwin Daze Sock Hop" with your favorite, popular, big science students. Watch as they 'mix it up' on the dance floor!"
Ha!
Lots to see at the "Expelled" playground link! I want a T-shirt!
The controversy over this film began quite a while ago and has now been whirled into a frenzy! Note the date of the posting at the LifeEthics.org blogpost - October of 2007!
There are many "big science" supporters who have posted comments. We see, once again, that many continue to use the typical, rabid, and condescending rhetoric they have become famous for!
Thankfully, there are level headed scientists who do not pander to the leftist elites, their a priori commitment to materialism-only explanations, or their constant criticisms.
I particularly liked the latest one:
Anonymous said...
I have been a scientist for over 40 years and scientists routinely teach untestable theories in the classroom. For example, string theory is untestable, but it is routinely discussed in scientific circles and in the classroom. The only difference between string theory and intelligent design is that it doesn't involve the possible existence of a creator (i.e., God). Most scientists are happy to teach/discuss fringe, untestable theories as long as God is removed from the equation. As a believer in God, I am not opposed to teaching evolution as long as an honest debate of its many weaknesses and untestable aspects is allowed. The truth is, scientists who question the validity macro-evolution do so at their own peril, because the scientific community is so close-minded. Expelled simply exposes this fact in a humorous way. In my opinion, there is a desperate need for exposing modern scientific education for what it really is: indoctrination and brain-washing of people to disbelieve in the existence God. Three cheers for Ben Stein and his new movie.
By the way, for you hardcore evolutionists, questioning the validity of macro-evolutionary theory does not invalidate or jeopardize the medical advances being achieved by using the finer aspects of evolutionary theory to better understand the living things. Hence, there is absolutely nothing inherently sinister or wrong about questioning the more questionable aspects of evolutionary theory. Such a debate is needed and would be healthy for the scientific community.
4/20/2008 7:26 AM
Read Jill Stanek sees ‘Big Bang’ coming from the left April 18!
Be back later with my evaluation of the movie!
*******
Preliminary Review:
The movie was excellent!!! I am preparing a review, but would love to see it again!!!
I would like to share where my interest in this very important subject began.
Starting in 1999, I attended a series of lectures on Intelligent Design at BIOLA University (mentioned in the film). Here is a portion of what I had learned back then that was finally exposed in this excellent movie!!
In “First Things,” Phillip E. Johnson wrote, “Those in scientific leadership cannot afford to disclose that commitment (to materialism) frankly to the public. Imagine what chance the affirmative side would have if the question for public debate were rephrased candidly as ‘Resolved, that everyone should adopt an a priori commitment to materialism.’ Everyone would see what many now sense dimly: that a methodological premise which is useful for limited purposes has been expanded to form a metaphysical absolute.”
“People who define science as the search for materialistic explanations will find it useful to assume that such explanations always exist. To suppose that a philosophical preference can validate a cherished theory is to define ’science’ as a way of supporting prejudice. Yet that is exactly what the Darwinists seem to be doing when their evidence is evaluated by critics who are willing to question materialism.”
Many scientists and philosophers think that a dedication to materialism is the defining characteristic of science. If design in biology is real, then the designer also might be real, and scientific materialists contemplate this possibility (if at all) with outright panic. The concept that the universe is the product of a rational mind provides a far better metaphysical basis for scientific rationality than the competing concept that everything in the universe, including our minds, is ultimately based in the mindless movements of matter.
As Phillip E. Johnson had stated seven years ago, if the commitment to such materialistic explanation were exposed to the public, then people would realize the REAL reason that Intelligent Design is being rejected by scientist elitists in academia today.
"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" was far better than I thought that it would be. Far better than I even could have hoped it would be!! It gets to the heart of the controversy, and how one side is not only dominating its presentation of its particular worldview, but also firing people (i.e. university professors, journalists) who don't "toe the line" towards Darwinism exclusivism. Its like a dogma! It is "political correctness" taken to an unnecessasry extreme! It is, in fact, a type of "religion"!
It will be difficult to write a review without giving away the most important facts that Stein uncovered and exposed to the public via this film!! Everyone in the theater yesterday clapped at the end!!
Mike wrote a comment that had this thought:
"perhaps the bigger question, though, is why is populating all of creation by evolutionary means such a threat?"
This film poses, and answers this question:
perhaps the bigger question, though, is why is populating all of creation by intelligent design means such a threat?
This film answers that question...precisely...and exposes how one side (Darwinism elitists) have used the universities, media, and the courts to erect a "Berlin Wall" preventing the free speech, presentation of a worldview, and ideas of those who hold counter scientific views (with evidence to support such views) against the "sacred cow" of Evolution (particularly macro-evolution which is really an extrapolation of the evidence for micro-evolution used to create a long-held but worthless fairy tale portion of the theory).
What is most obvious in all of this is the fact that intelligence in science matters!! However, it is being squelched by those who fear that a competing theory might have some measure of merit. ID is currently only able to chip away at that Berlin Wall, but when more of the public find out the REAL MOTIVES of why such a Wall is up in academic circles, they will most likely protest and work to change what is going on!
Those who have lost their jobs because of speaking out against the "powers that be" in science academia are the real heroes - because they have determined to follow the evidence where it is now leading - despite being forced to lose such things as tenure/jobs in their fields of expertise.
Everyone, please go out and buy "The Privileged Planet" to help support one such science professor (Guillermo Gonzalez) who was denied tenure because the book he co-wrote showed SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that our planet is, indeed PRIVILEGED because of evidence of design (and because of such design - a purpose for our lives) in the Cosmos!
More later....
Posts
6 comments:
i hope you gather from this that the debate over the film is not one-sided, and to think that there aren't elements of truth in each position is arrogant. i read a good review in the ajc y'day showing that the best evidence against darwinism is that this film shows we haven't evolved on iota...
neither side here is 100% correct.
perhaps the bigger question, though, is why is populating all of creation by evolutionary means such a threat?
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
The movie was excellent!!! I am preparing a review, but would love to see it again!!!
It was far better than I thought that it would be. It gets to the heart of the controversy, and how one side is not only dominating its presentation of its particular worldview, but also firing people from universities who don't "toe the line" towards Darwinism exclusivism. Its like a dogma! A type of "religion" in fact!
It will be difficult to write a review without giving away most important facts that Stein uncovered and exposed to the public via this film!! Everyone in the theatre yesterday clapped at the end!!
Mike - this film poses, and answers this question:
perhaps the bigger question, though, is why is populating all of creation by intelligent design means such a threat?
This film answers that question...precisely...and exposes how one side (Darwinism elitists) have used the universities, media, and the courts to erect a "Berlin Wall" preventing the free speech, worldview, and ideas of those who hold counter views to the "sacred cow" of Evolution (particularly macro-evolution which is really an extrapolation of the evidence for micro-evolution used to create a long-held but worthless fairy tale portion of the theory). What is most obvious in all of this is the fact that intelligence in science matters is being squelched by those who fear that a competing theory might have some measure of merit. ID is currently only able to chip away at that Berlin Wall, but when more of the public find out the REAL MOTIVES of why such a Wall is up in academic circles, they will most likely protest and change what is going on!
Those who have lost their jobs because of speaking out against the "powers that be" in science academia are the real heroes - because they have determined to follow the evidence where it is now leading - despite being forced to lose such things as tenure/jobs in their field of expertise.
Everyone please go out and by "The Privileged Planet" to help support one such science professor who was denied tenure because the book he co-wrote showed EVIDENCE that our planet is, indeed PRIVILEGED in the Cosmos for dozens of reasons!
More later....
Michael Behe, in his original description of the Intelligent Design idea (Darwin's Black Box), posits the existence of a designer who provided designs for various complex biological forms. He gives the Mount Rushmore Memorial as an example of a designed object. He coyly neglects to mention that the designer of the memorial was a man named Gutzon Borglum and that the sculpture was made reality in our universe by men using dynamite and air hammers to physically carve the rock from which it was formed.
In the case of ID, the nature and identity of the Designer is the fundamental question that is left unanswered. Is the designer some overarching natural intelligence or is it a supernatural entity (i.e., God)? In either case, how does the designer influence the development of objects in our natural world? Until ID can answer these questions, it can only be viewed as philosophical speculation - not objective science.
Darwin's theory and its modern derivatives at least provide the beginnings of answers to these questions. Genetics introduces new forms into our world and natural selection tests them for viability. If they survive the test, they pass their genes to succeeding generations. How God influences these proceses is a matter of personal belief.
Many people characterize science as atheistic. It is not; it is agnostic. A formal, objective proof of God's existence cannot be written. This goes all the way back to Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason where he wrote, "We can make no statement regarding the metaphysical (or supernatural) because we have no way of experiencing it." Jesus of Nazareth said, "God is spirit." The word in Koine Greek is "pneuma", which carries the allegorical connotation of a gentle zephyr breeze barely rustling the leaves of a tree. Beyond that, we have no idea what spirit is or what God's supernatural realm might be. We call it "Heaven" but know nothing more about it. We can't make a spirit detector or a meta-telescope to look into supernatural realms and therefore have no way of testing for God's existence.
For explanations of the supernatural, people turn to subjective religious belief. Here, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say, as evidenced by the many, many religious systems in the world today. Religion has a valid place in our experience. It helps to explain what we cannot understand and provides hope for the future.
Subjectively, I am a Christian believer. Objectively, however, I am agnostic. These positions are not inconsistent - merely two different ways of looking at our universe.
As I see it, Expelled is another attempt by Creationists - now using the ID masquerade - to subvert science education and the First Amendment prohibition of official religion. Getting their dogma into public schools would provide leverage to enable the Creationists to expand their influence into other areas of our government with the ultimate goal of making Fundamentalist Christianity the national religion. Freedom of speech is not the issue as the movie alleges. Creationists have all the freedom they need to preach their peculiar view of the world through religious channels. Our governmental system is secular and must remain so if we all are to remain free. I have not and will not see the movie because it is another attempt to dispense the same propaganda that Creationists have been peddling for years.
Virgil H. Soule
soule1061@verizon.net
Hi Virgil,
Thank you for your insightful comments. Many people probably agree with many, if not all, of your assessments. However, if you would re-consider and go see the film, some of your concerns might be alleviated.
I am doing a more detailed post with a link to an excellent interview between Ben Stein and Christian theologian, R.C. Sproul. You can view it here.
Keep in mind that Ben Stein is Jewish and R.C. is Christian. As you watch the video, you will see that they don't go beyond a certain point regarding the identity of the Designer. I believe that this same thing can be done in schools and universities. The fact that inquiry about noticeable patterns of design (in both biology and in the fine-tuning of the universe) is "off limits" - just because the implications may lead towards the possiblity that the designer is God - should not make ID suspect as non-science. I know that you will disagree with me on that point, but if you watch the interview, and then go see the movie, perhaps you may pick up on what I am trying to say.
You wrote:
"In the case of ID, the nature and identity of the Designer is the fundamental question that is left unanswered. Is the designer some overarching natural intelligence or is it a supernatural entity (i.e., God)? In either case, how does the designer influence the development of objects in our natural world? Until ID can answer these questions, it can only be viewed as philosophical speculation - not objective science."
Intelligent Design is an hypothesis. It does not need to identify "who" the designer is (like Richard Dawkins states in the film...it could have been an alien!); but detection of design is a form of scientific inquiry that does not violate the scientific method.
Neo-Darwinism does not identify the exact "mechanism" that started life from non-life, either. Nor, can it ultimately show how inorganic matter became organic. This is speculation on the part of the Darwinian philosophical premise on origins which leads to the unwarranted extrapolation of the evidence for micro-evolution (that ID'ers nor Creationists deny)towards macro-evolution.
I don't see why the controversy can't be discussed.
It is not subversion of science education. It does not establish a particular religion.
However, the modus operandi by the elites have constructed their own Berlin Wall of scientism. What is going on in the universities today demonstrates that the status quo in that environment is, quite frankly, an establishment of a type of Darwinian religion.
As Stein's movie title reveals - any professor/journalist/teacher who disagrees with the status quo is Expelled from their employment. Why? Because of bias. That's not education. That is a monopoly that stifles scientific inquiry. This is why the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was made. To expose such suppression of free speech when it comes to scientific ideas.
The fact that I, and S.J. Camp are Christians who believe in the Christian God as the Designer does not negate Stein's belief in Judaism. Nor, would it negate a Muslim's belief in Allah.
My blog is a Christian blog. It is only natural that I would identify the Designer as the Christian God of the Bible. However, this does not mean that this must be done in schools and universities. People (like Carl Sagan's SETI experiments and the movie "Contact") can believe that the designer is an alien!
Therefore, your claim that ID is "disguised Creationism" is unwarranted. Your assumption is just a ruse to take attention away from the real subject.
You wrote:
"Subjectively, I am a Christian believer. Objectively, however, I am agnostic. These positions are not inconsistent - merely two different ways of looking at our universe."
You are entitled to your beliefs. I may not agree with them, but it doesn't mean that we could not both pursue evidence for design in biology and/or in the fine-tuning of the universe. See what I am getting at now?
I would love to hear your thoughts and opinions about the movie. Let me know if you change your mind and decide to go and see it.
Sincerely,
Christine
"Intelligent Design is an hypothesis."
I don't believe it. What does "intelligent design" actually "predict" that does not agree with evolution?
"detection of design is a form of scientific inquiry that does not violate the scientific method."
This might be an interesting speculation if it actually made any sense. How do you "detect design"? Crystals? Snowflakes? Rock layers? A flagellum?
One senses that a watch is designed based on knowledge that watchmakers are known to exist. Does one sense that a flagellum is designed because flagellum designers are known to exist? Or does one simply "assert" that it is "obviously" designed? But the evolutionary steps are now known. So there's no need for it to be designed.
"can it ultimately show how inorganic matter became organic"
You are, of course, making a prediction that humans will NEVER come to an understanding of how this could happen. But there are already several interesting possibilities.
At any rate, that is of course not the same as evolution. No one argues that life does not exist on this earth. So the question is - can "evolution" explain all of the diversity of life on this earth? If so, then it is a "fact". If not, how are you going to try to prove that evolution "cannot do this"? Every time someone tries, they are shown to be wrong.
onein6billion:
i read your comment since it showed up in my email.
how many times have you been to 'talk trash' - uh, i mean, 'talk wisdom'?
spend even the slightest amount of time here, and you will find that there is a great dearth of:
a) wisdom, in spite of the title;
b) rational thinking, in spite of the claims to have been taught to defend the faith by the blog owner and several regular commentators;
c) scientific knowledge, though they think they are stepping into intelligent discussions by voicing opinions on ... movies;
d) objectivity and fairness, in spite of the cross lapel pins everyone wears (and, goshdarnit, obama just won't wear his - what does that say about him?).
don't waste your breath (or your keystrokes). even if they use their collective IQ of about 79 and admit your argument makes sense, they'll then claim they are being persecuted just like Jesus said they would be.
quite a racket they've got: they can argue they're 'right' until they're blue in the face, but even if (God forbid) they are shown to be wrong, they STILL get to claim they are right!
and we wonder why these folks supported gwb in masse...
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
Post a Comment