"Expelled"

Posted April 28th, 2008 at 06:30 PM by Robert Dunn
in

Hey, has anyone seen the Ben Stein movie, "Expelled?" I had a chance to, and I was impressed! It is a stunning commentary on our state of higher education when people can not even question Darwin without risk to their career.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
On April 28th, 2008 at 08:05 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

I saw it. The part I found most interesting was when Dawkins essentially said that if evidence from the cell or somewhere else suggested that life on earth was designed intelligently, that it could have been aliens that designed us. I guess as long as it presupposes that God does not exist it's science.

Glock21's picture
On April 28th, 2008 at 09:50 PM, Glock21 said:

Dawkin's point seems to be, as usual, that without confirmation a theory can be as absurd as you want it to be... but it doesn't mean we should be teaching kids such absurdity.  You can "fill in the gaps" with gods, aliens, or flying spaghetti monsters... but it will never be accepted by the scientific community. 

 

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

On April 28th, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

Hey, back off with the derogatory comments about our holy flying spagetti monster! Have some respect or I will make holy war on you.

Glock21's picture
On April 28th, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Glock21 said:

Anon... pardon me while I tremble in my cyber-boots.  But I kneel to no man, nor no man's prophets, nor to no man's make believe invisible wrath. 

 

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

On April 29th, 2008 at 07:21 AM, xian said:

BUT IT LOOKS LIKE A BOWL OF SPAGHETTI!!!!!

On April 29th, 2008 at 08:43 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

"Dawkin's point seems to be, as usual, that without confirmation a theory can be as absurd as you want it to be... but it doesn't mean we should be teaching kids such absurdity."

Well, that wasn't his point. He rejects the possibility that it was God, but accepts that it may have been super intelligent aliens. Other athiest scientists speculate lightning striking a mud puddle could have started life going. So I think the point we should take from it all is that these scientists are willing to introduce entities for which there is no evidence and suppose events for which there is no known mechanism, as long as we are clear that God is not involved.

Glock21's picture
On April 29th, 2008 at 09:24 AM, Glock21 said:

anon8:43... I doubt any of that would pass scientific scrutiny to be taught in a k-12 science classroom either.  The speculation and grand theories of various scientists on what they may discover some day doesn't really change the rules on what can be observed and tested to confirm or disprove theories.

 

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

On April 29th, 2008 at 09:58 AM, Dane said:

If I'm not mistaken, there have been all kinds of experiments where elctricity has been introduced to environments and various chnages have resulted that are consistent with chemical comounds that are basic to life.

Did God cause the lightning in order to start the reaction? If that's what you want to believe, then feel free. I am likewise free to believe that processes are more complex than what boils down to magic.

On April 29th, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

"If I'm not mistaken, there have been all kinds of experiments where elctricity has been introduced to environments and various chnages have resulted that are consistent with chemical comounds that are basic to life."

Just another example of the poor "science" that is taught regarding evolution.

D. Boon's picture
On April 29th, 2008 at 01:21 PM, D. Boon said:

The speculation and grand theories of various scientists on what they may discover some day doesn't really change the rules on what can be observed and tested to confirm or disprove theories.

I agree with this, though I wonder if evolution is really what we are talking about here.  Unless I am mis-remembering my Bio classes from the U, it seems that evolution is all about the process of life since creation.  In other words, it does not attempt to answer the question of how life got started, only what happened after that life began.

Frankly, I don't think anyone will ever be able to claim scientific evidence to prove what caused the big bang.  We can probably prove what happened after the process of life began, but how can we ever know where life itself comes from?

And if that is the case, then there really is no other rational explanation than "magic", or God.  I have little doubt that evolution is a solid theory that is supported by tons of evidence.  But I also have no doubt that nobody on the planet will ever be able to tell us where life itself comes from. 

I choose God. 

Glock21's picture
On April 29th, 2008 at 01:40 PM, Glock21 said:

Boon... yeah, the difference, at least as I see it is that science is limited by what can be observed and confirmed through observations, etc.  Philosophy, including religious philosophies, are where ideas and theories about the unobservable can be studied more seriously.  Scientific studies may help or hinder those theories... but philosophical theories on the unobservable seem unlikely to help or hinder the scientific theories that rely on observation... though they obviously can help inform them. 

 

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

IlliniPundit's picture
On April 29th, 2008 at 01:44 PM, IlliniPundit said:

"Unless I am mis-remembering my Bio classes from the U, it seems that evolution is all about the process of life since creation.  In other words, it does not attempt to answer the question of how life got started, only what happened after that life began."That's what I remember, too.

I also remember my Bio prof explaining that it's only called the "Theory of Evolution" because it's unproven exactly how and why the genetic mutations which are fundamental occur.  That evolution occurs is not a theory.  Precisely how it occurs is.  Or was, 15 years ago when I was taking Bio 101 anyway.

"But I also have no doubt that nobody on the planet will ever be able to tell us where life itself comes from. 

I choose God. "

Well stated.

D. Boon's picture
On April 29th, 2008 at 03:37 PM, D. Boon said:

Right.  And to completely dismiss scienctific discoveries because they don't align with our religious beliefs is not only unwise, imo, it is also insulting to the religious traditions, which have often been at the forefront of the expansion of our knowledge.

Christians should not be afraid of science.  All those folks are doing is trying to figure out how it all works.  And if God really exists, then eventually all of these trails will lead back to Him in one way or the other.  We should never fear the truth - we should be always seeking after it.  When we find truth, we find God.

Even if he didn't make the Earth in six actual days.

On April 29th, 2008 at 04:37 PM, Dane said:

Boon.

I very much like your perspective on Christians (religion) not needing to be afraid of science. It does not need to be the other way around either. However your last sentence ultimately gets to the heart of the issue. For suggesting that God did not actually create the earth in six days 10,000 years ago, will get you called a heretic. Heretics in more extreme arenas tend to get treated poorly (Spanish Inquisition, anyone? Afghanistan?) An atmosphere that supports that thinking does not encourage science. That's a small number of people you say? Like in many of the more polarizing debates the extremists tend to push the agenda. People of similar but less radical beliefs find themselves swept up in a tide. That's why there have been several battles on the teaching of evolution or anything around it.

On April 29th, 2008 at 08:24 PM, Narc said:

 

I also remember my Bio prof explaining that it's only called the "Theory of Evolution" because it's unproven exactly how and why the genetic mutations which are fundamental occur.

Not exactly. The use of "theory" has nothing to do with anything unproven or speculative in the theory. Theory means that it is a cohesive explanation of an entire phenomenon. That's why we have Quantum Theory, Atomic Theory, and the Germ Theory of Disease.

 

Unless I am mis-remembering my Bio classes from the U, it seems that evolution is all about the process of life since creation. In other words, it does not attempt to answer the question of how life got started...

That's correct. Evolution = change in living species over time. Abiogenesis = life arising from non-life.

Of course the whole life/non-life distinction falls apart if you consider that what we call life is really just complicated chemistry.

 

On April 29th, 2008 at 08:44 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

"Of course the whole life/non-life distinction falls apart if you consider that what we call life is really just complicated chemistry."

Exactly, and humans have no souls, and free will is an illusion, as is consciousness. If you have a problem with that, you're a goofy flat-earther.

D. Boon's picture
On April 29th, 2008 at 10:50 PM, D. Boon said:

Of course the whole life/non-life distinction falls apart if you consider that what we call life is really just complicated chemistry.

Not at all.  Think of this way: who created chemistry?  Atoms?  Energy itself?  Where, exactly, is the universe?  What is space?

We can go on and on, and then maybe drop some acid to find the answers.  But regardless, all we really can do is take a look at what exists, and explain how it came from the creature before it (sometimes).  We cannot explain why life itself exists.  And, frankly, we can't explain where we even are.

We know so very little.  Why is it so difficult to imagine that there is a God who loves us?

Glock21's picture
On April 29th, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Glock21 said:

"Why is it so difficult to imagine that there is a God who loves us?"

 

It's not.  But imagination alone isn't science.  That's more useful in a philosophy course which can inform science, but is not in itself, science.  Make philosophy a requirement and I'll support ID and other theories of the unobservable in school.  It has no place in a K-12 science curriculum imo.

 

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

On April 30th, 2008 at 08:04 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

The general reaction of scientists is that the movie is fundamentally and egregiously dishonest.

See http://www.expelledexposed.com from the National Center for Science Education.

It's also utterly bombed at the box office.

"Intelligent Design" is just creationism repackaged -- badly -- in order to evade the 1987 Supreme Court decision that banned creationism from public schools. "Intelligent Design" tries to portray itself as a secular movement with a secular purpose. It is not. That is the central lie of ID.

The other lie of ID, of course, is the idea they push that if you accept Darwin you can't also accept God. That's why they go out of their way to highlight vocal atheists like Dawkins over people like Ken Miller. If you're looking for a good, clear explanation about what evolution really is, and how it doesn't demand atheism the way the IDers say it does, this is a great book.

http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501

On April 30th, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Narc said:

 

Why is it so difficult to imagine that there is a God who loves us?

It's not at all difficult and I don't understand why you think people have difficulty imagining it. It's also not difficult to imagine an entire pantheon of Gods that interact with the human world in a myriad of different ways. It's not about what you believe. It's about your evidence. That's what I can't understand about the religious mindset. There are about a million different religions out there, but every believer is convinced that his is the One and True Religion and all the others are false, yet no one ever has anything substantial to base their claims on. It's all Russell's Teapot.

 

If you want to claim that God created the universe 6000 years ago, that's fine. You're just going to have to provide some evidence that's better than what we've got now. If you want to that the brain is just meat and the mind exists non-corporeally separate from it, great, show me your data.

The problem with Intelligent Design is that it's like people claiming the Earth is flat and sits on the backs of four elephants standing on a giant turtle and when they're shown photos of a round Earth from the Space Shuttle, they still refuse to adapt their beliefs to reality.

D. Boon's picture
On April 30th, 2008 at 12:38 PM, D. Boon said:

Narc - I am not sure who you are arguing with, but it certainly isn't me.

There is no evidence for God.  And there is no evidence against God.  We are alive, and though we may be able to trace the evolution of life on planet Earth, or even in the universe, back to the beginning (creation), we cannot explain, nor can we produce any evidence to explain, why life is happening.  Why life exists at all.

Just as we can't really explain why people do horrible, horrible things.  Or, more on point, why doing something horrible is even horrible.  Or why doing something good is good.  We can't explain love.  We can't explain fear.  We can observe these feelings and try to explain why people fall in love, or act out of fear.  But we can't explain why fear or love exist in the first place.

God is all the way back in the beginning.  Science is just checking out where we are now and doing its level best to explain everything.  More power to them!  But they can never explain the origin of anything because no microscope or scientific theory can work in the realm.

So embrace science to your heart's content.  Go for it!  But eventually, if you really want to know why we exist, not just how we exist, you will find no way to an answer.  Unless you choose faith.

Good luck, and blessings (whatever those are)!

On April 30th, 2008 at 02:45 PM, Dane said:

Science and religion share one problem. Where did it all come from in the first place? For there to be a big bang all of the stuff had to be in that little ball of matter. Where did the matter come from? For God to make it God had to come from somewhere (on top of the magic trick of then creating all of the stuff from nothing). Science has to say, It's here, otherwise nothing would be here. Religion says God, or whatever deity suffices, is all powerful and made it happen, but still without an explanation for how God came to be. God's just here, period. So each has the starting point of taking it on faith that the origins are unknown, unknowable, and irrefutable.

 

Historically God’s ability to create has sufficed for inquiry. Anything not understood was God’s work. Once the process was better understood, based on inquiry, then the process must be God’s work. Just keep working this back to the starting point and you have the common problem. I prefer to examine the process rather than mystify it. At the end, or the beginning if you will, there is the always the unknowable mystery. That mystery will have to be taken on faith by both sides, but they significantly diverge after that.