Expelled: No intelligence Allowed

[Akashic_Librarian]

Well the title says it all doesn't it.

I am of course reffering to the brand new, ground breaking movie made by ben Stein who I am assured is quite popular in the states. Unashamedly drole and borishly he sells this movie as apparently an unbiased look at how supposedly respected scientists are smeared and "expelled" because they "dared" to go against the status quo and believe in Creationism. Now they call it intelligent Design, well as someone whos name i can't remember put it, Intelligent design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo, which sums it up quite nicely.

Before I even critique the ethics and morals behind this movie, lets look at perhaps the good points about it (heaven help us).

First of all it stands up for an idea that is rapidly losing credibility and tries desperately to preserve an out-dated idea that holds no place in a modern world...

wait...thats not a good point, let me try again....ok *ahem*

It lies to respectable scientists, claiming the movie being made is called cross-roads, an entirely different movie name to Expelled. Wait..hang on thats not good either...damn wait I have it...no this is definitely good!...

It claims that Creationism, Fundamentalism essentially, is NOT dangerous, but rather it should be embraced and studied on a par with Darwinism in the classroom...lets look at that in more detail...its says words altered over two-thousand years to suit various political agendas, words that suggest an incomprehensible deity of unimaginable power and omniscience created everything in the whole universe, and even created the universe, (this being of course is not explained in the sense of; if god created everything, who created God?, but rather we are expected to consider this on a par with a scientifically testable, proveable idea that does not require faith but rather requires a little bit of intelligence....

Damn it all thats not good either!

So lets get on with it then! One of the worlds, arguablly THE worlds greatest super-power plugs fairy-tales as a means of explaining existence. I see, thats reassuring, because I enjoy the fact that MY leader is led along by a fantatical zealot. I like the fact that my western neighbours fight so honourably to bring democracy to the east, whilsts saying they fight in the name of God. But to top it all off I love the fact that large movie companys honestly think that wanting to teach ridiculous fairy tales, made up stories, and unproveable hypotheses to children, merely because you can't unprove it, and we live in a world of free-speech...etc...etc...Well I have news for you people...its not a debate really...its an argument will a little child having a tantrum because the adult doesn't believe there is a ghost in the wardrobe (psst...Fundamentalist creationists...your the child...if you hadn't guessed)

Yes this is a hate filled post, yes its biased, and it attacks peoples precious feelings...but I know a lot of people feel the same way as I do...and religous views don't veto scientific ones just BECAUSE.

[JoeGoldfarb]

i thought i posted a reply referring to a blog about a Q&A with the director after a screening of this movie, but apparently i never submitted the reply. anyway, you can find the blog entry, which is interesting and amusing (regarding how the director acted and answered) review at newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience

this thread is asking to get flame-hot, so that might be why there are no replies.


cheers

[joecooool]

humankind is the puddle, marveling at how perfectly the pothole conforms to its shape. haha. Intelligent design thinks the entire world was made just for us, to fit us. This is backwards logic. Evolution realizes the pothole(world) developed first, then life evolved to fit it.

-evidence of random mutation + natural selection = the process
-evidence of the fossil record = the picture
the process flowing through the picture = the theory of evolution, its that simple. and it has been confirmed by the field of genetics, and has won in the supreme court twice.

and evolution does not say we popped out of monkeys one day, it says todays homo sapiens share a common ancestor with todays great apes.

Intelligent design assumes complexity equals design and then uses that assumption as evidence of a designer. you cant get from an assumption to a proof. intelligent design is just a far fetched hypothesis at this point, so it doesn't deserve to be in science class.

[Christian223]

Shouldnt there be more evidence of random mutations to be true evidence?, where are the millions of fossils that show "failed" mutations?, if they are random, why all adaptations serve a specific purpose?, if its specific its not random.

If "evidence of random mutation + natural selection " is true, there should be evidence for millions of mutantions of a single specie, like this illustration of a "Mutantions tree":


1) Animal Animaly-us-lop -> Animaly-us-lop-pak -> More...
/
2) Animaly ->Animaly-us
\
Animaly-us-mek -> Millions more...

2) Animalop -> Animalo-pet -> Animalo-Pet-Tonic -> Millions more...
\
Millions More Animalo-Pet-Tonic-mek
/
2) Animluk -> Animalu-kuf ->Millions More

2) Millions more

Is there fossil evidence for this?, no.

Mutations - How Big The Changes?

[Brutha]

If "evidence of random mutation + natural selection " is true, there should be evidence for millions of mutantions of a single specie, like this illustration of a "Mutantions tree":

There are millions of different gen mutations in any specis at the moment out there. If you look at two humans there are differences between them.
There are even humans that can be mentally retarded du to a few mutations and therefore are "failed" specis.
If you want a failed specis there are a lot of them Neaderthalers for example are a failed form with shared ancestors that lived in the last millon years. (they aren't our direct ancestors)

Mutations are also not the only method to get new genes into a species. Viruses can also get genes from one specis into another.

Scientist in France have for example found that an RNA virus has imbedded itself rougly 3 million years ago into the human genome. It doesn't function but is sepereated into 15 pieces but if you put those pieces together you will get again a functioning virus.
Why should a God hide an RNA virus in our DNA?

From a design perspective designing eyes with a blindspot is also a bad idea that leads to a strange kind of God.

Mutations - How Big The Changes?

The person who wrote this obviously is no biologist and doesn't understand the mechanisms.
For starters, the amount of genes that a human has is at the moment expected to be between 20000 and 25000 but not 100000.
Those gen even overlapp on the DNA. In a String of xxxaaaccc one Gene could be xaa and other could be xxaaaccc. Genes don't have to be completly reinvented.

Then you don't need any Xrays for mutations (but Xrays will naturally also create additional mutations). Every time a cell devides and copies its DNA there are rougly 300000 mutations in the DNA. Afterwards the cell patches most of them but leaves around 3 mutations.
Till a human gives his genes into the next generation there are quite a few cell devisions...

[bentoak]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

..and religous views don't veto scientific ones just BECAUSE.

Correct. And vice versa.

However I think you are missing the point of the film. Is there an attempt by the scientific "establishment" to quash any and all debate on the issue by ostrisizing those who dare to question the evidence for Darwinism? And more importantly, is there an attempt to stifle the voices of those within academe who offer contradictory evidence and alternative theories? I think Stein has made a compelling case that there is.

When truth is made to conform to personal assumptions, you wind up with something less than the truth, which is not truth at all. There are those on both sides of this debate...not just those who argue for intelligent design...that are doing just that. It is the proponents if ID that are challenging the mainstream establishment assumptions and, according to this film, they must be expelled from the scientific community "just because".

The question of how life began does not yet have a diffinitive answer. The scientifc method requires you to hold on loosly to your assumptions, and there are many gaps to be filled on both sides of the argument. Let's have the discussion among all of the participants in the scientific community and let the evidence lead us to the truth, regardless of where we find ourselves at the end of the search.

[bellemeadows]

The question of how life began does not yet have a diffinitive answer. The scientifc method requires you to hold on loosly to your assumptions, and there are many gaps to be filled on both sides of the argument. Let's have the discussion among all of the participants in the scientific community and let the evidence lead us to the truth, regardless of where we find ourselves at the end of the search.

I like that.

The bottom-line is, we have a lot of beliefs going on. We have some beliefs with evidence others don't agree with. And we have opposing beliefs with evidence others don't agree with.

If we teach both sides, suggest tolerance for other's views, and encourage people to investigate all of the evidence, and reach for their own conclusions , perhaps that wouldn't be such a bad thing. I think where people seem to get crazy, is where they insist that their belief is TRUTH, because they believe it and agree with the evidence supporting it. The next step is to insist that others believe exactly as they do, which is a path fraught with danger for all. When the church tortured and burned those women herbalists/healers (witches) at the stake, that was the logical extension of requiring others to believe as you do because it is right. History is full of such aggression -- another form of it is the 9/11 attacks. . . Kindness and compassion for ourselves and for others. I wish we would add more of that to our teaching curriculums.

By the way, just because the two examples I cited were examples of religious aggression, doesn't mean I believe that scientists aren't capable of aggression as well. Any viewpoint held so tightly that no one else's viewpoint is tolerated, can potentially become a rallying call for attack of the opposition. When we make our beliefs more important than our compassion for others, potentially, bad things can happen. History shows us that again, and again.

Blessings from Belle (who absolutely has her own beliefs, and doesn't care if even one person agrees or disagrees)

[DayInTheLife]

I am all for any explicit examination of both creationism and biological evolution.

In my experience, it seems that those who believe in biological evolution do so because it makes rational sense, and those who believe in creationism believe in it because it matches their religion.

So yes, an objective, unsentimental examination of both is always welcome.

As far as teaching both in the classroom, perhaps we should wait until there are sound logical arguments that support creationism. As of yet there do not seem to be any.

[Joeschmoe]

Originally Posted by DayInTheLife

I am all for any explicit examination of both creationism and biological evolution.

In my experience, it seems that those who believe in biological evolution do so because it makes rational sense, and those who believe in creationism believe in it because it matches their religion.

So yes, an objective, unsentimental examination of both is always welcome.

As far as teaching both in the classroom, perhaps we should wait until there are sound logical arguments that support creationism. As of yet there do not seem to be any.

Yes, I'd like to here a rational, objective argument for intelligent design. It would preferably not rely on an unobservable, untestable, supreme being.

Anyone?

[jsam]

Originally Posted by Joeschmoe

Yes, I'd like to here a rational, objective argument for intelligent design. It would preferably not rely on an unobservable, untestable, supreme being.

Anyone?

JOESCHMOE,

Since a character in a play cannot observe or test the author of the play, the creator of his character, then is it not possible that the creation cannot perceive its creator? All attempts to do so create idols and "miss the mark".
I think the best we can do to understand is to mentally go within, and those who have found the center of their being are content, and no longer need to seek for a "god". The human intellect, which has been a valuable tool for creating our human world, cannot describe that which is not perceivable or testable, like the mysterious forces of gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear forces, etc. It can only measure effects and try to predict future events. The "what? and "Why?" of our mysteries can only be guessed at, and distorted through the dark lenses of our ego mentality.

[bentoak]

Originally Posted by Joeschmoe

Yes, I'd like to here a rational, objective argument for intelligent design. It would preferably not rely on an unobservable, untestable, supreme being.

Anyone?

It would also be nice to hear a rational, objective argument for the "big bang" that did not rely on any pre-concieved notions. Problem is we all enter the discussion with a bias.

The point of the film (remember, that's what the thread is about) is the assertion that one group is trying to silence another through forms of coercion. Interesting that for years (decades?) those arguing the "mainstream" have claimed that creationists are trying to force their views, or "religion" into the educational system, yet isn't that what the scientific community is attempting to do through censuring those who hold up an alternative theory to theirs? There is no difinitive proof on either side.

It appears the "mainstream" scientific community is afraid of an open and honest debate on the issue, hence their determination to shut out anyone who dares to question their reasoning. The film presents a convincing argument for this.

[jsam]

Originally Posted by bentoak

It would also be nice to hear a rational, objective argument for the "big bang" that did not rely on any pre-concieved notions. Problem is we all enter the discussion with a bias.

The point of the film (remember, that's what the thread is about) is the assertion that one group is trying to silence another through forms of coercion. Interesting that for years (deacdes?) those arguing the "mainstream" have claimed that creationists are trying to force their views, or "religion" into the educational system, yet isn't that what the scientific community is attempting to do through censuring those who hold up an alternative theory to theirs? There is no difinitive proof on either side.

It appears the "mainstream" scientific community is afraid of an open and honest debate on the issue, hence their determination to shut out anyone who dares to question their reasoning. The film presents a convincing argument for this.

The scientists are not involved in keeping creationism out of public education. The politicians are, because they respect the wisdom of the constitution that separates religion from government. If a curriculum based on theories of intelligent creation that are not biased to any particular religion, can be offered, I think it would be a useful addition to education. Creationism, as it has been one of the planks in the platform of conservative Christians, tries to promote the archaic belief in a god evolved from the Yaweh, who, according to Exodus, told Moses to perform genocide on all the people of Midian, who were decendants of Abraham. Moses was angered when his troops spared women and children, and ordered the slaying of all women and boys. The young virgin girls were given to the soldiers. This kind of god, I believe, we can do without. Conservative Christians, certainly including Mormons, despite their protests, do describe their god much like Moses did. One who can be bribed by worship and sacrifice to be partial to his favorite people and doom the others.

[bentoak]

Originally Posted by jsam

The scientists are not involved in keeping creationism out of public education. The politicians are, because they respect the wisdom of the constitution that separates religion from government.

First, the constitution separates government from religion, not the other way around. Second, the film chronicles the attempt to block discussion from institutes of higher learning, not the public school system.

Originally Posted by jsam

If a curriculum based on theories of intelligent creation that are not biased to any particular religion, can be offered, I think it would be a useful addition to education.

And why exactly would it not be a useful addition if it were? We are talking about 2 distinct theories, brought forth from 2 distint biases on the part of their adherants.

Originally Posted by jsam

Creationism, as it has been one of the planks in the platform of conservative Christians, tries to promote the archaic belief in a god evolved from the Yaweh, who, according to Exodus, told Moses to perform genocide on all the people of Midian, who were decendants of Abraham. Moses was angered when his troops spared women and children, and ordered the slaying of all women and boys. The young virgin girls were given to the soldiers.

The event you speak of is recorded in Numbers 31, not Exodus, but it is irrellevant to the discussion at hand. It's a handy way to dismiss a perfectly relevant concept (and the people who espouse it) of how the universe was formed without attempting to examine whatever evidence they bring forth. (Don't listen to them...they're crazy, you know) The film argues that some would rather shut down the discussion altogether rather than have to defend their biases.

Originally Posted by jsam

This kind of god, I believe, we can do without. Conservative Christians, certainly including Mormons, despite their protests, do describe their god much like Moses did. One who can be bribed by worship and sacrifice to be partial to his favorite people and doom the others.

Again, irrelevant and off point. The scientific method follows the evidence wherever it leads. Ostrasizing those that assert a different hyphothesis and present evidence based on observation to support it sounds more like what the church tried to do to Gallileo and his contemporaries in the 17th century.

It begs the question, What are they so afraid of?

[tomstine]

Here is my somewhat humble opinion. Why I'm commenting on a potentially flammable topic is beyond me, but what the hell, right?

I think we should be honest first and foremost about science. Ever wonder why science deals with hypotheses, theories, etc.? It is because these are impossible to conclusively prove beyond all doubt. Ever notice how few Laws of nature science actually has?

Scientific laws are usually those hypotheses that when you repeat them over and over again right now, today, you get the same results. Over and over. Like Boyle's Law, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc. But notice, we can't ever say the Laws of Evolution because there is no way to repeat the past to test it out. We can only make hypotheses about what did or did not happen based upon relatively scanty evidence.

Admittedly, creationism is even harder to prove beyond all doubt, and is so outside the realm of science as to be completely impossible to subject to any scientific method. But evolution is by no means an established fact. It is a theory that has some evidence for it. And that is really about it. It isn't "the truth." Honestly, how about we give evolution a few minutes of time in the science classroom and move on to things we can actually talk about.

As a former high school science and math teacher, I can tell you that instructional time is better spent on algebra, geometry, basic biology, chemistry and earth science than wasting so much breath on evolution. You would be horrified to know how many college bound kids really don't get fractions. Or know a bit about reproductive biology. I can't say enough that wasting time with evolution or creationism is just that: a waste of time.