Comments for Intelligent Design Film is Far Worse Than Stupid »
Posted By Neophile 1 year, 7 months ago in Arts & EntertainmentRarely has a movie subtitle so capably assessed a movie's content as does "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." There is not a shred of intelligence on display in this just released "documentary" purporting to be a careful examination of the fight over teaching creationism and evolution in America.
Read Full Story at msnbc.msn.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 196 of 199 Comments
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And it just keeps getting better than this:
"The definition of what science is and what should be taught as science in a world in which Asia and Europe are itching to clean our economic clocks by seeing us throw away our considerable lead in synthetic biology, genomics, agriculture and the biomedical, oceanographic, geological and energy sciences escapes Stein and his producers."
Yeah, it does. Here's more FTA:
"Science, by the very definition of the term, wants to invoke god or divine intervention as little as possible in seeking explanations for natural phenomena. Is that because, as "Expelled" suggests, scientists hate religion? No. Rather it is because the whole point of science is to press to see how far natural causes and mechanisms can go in explaining what is going on around us."
More
Reply-
Neutral
NoSpinDave1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why is it that liberals can't understand that religious bigotry is just as bad as any other kind of bigotry?
Until liberals stop living a life of hypocrisy its hard to even begin a discussion with them.
Great job Neo, I guess between all your drive by neg'ing you have time to prove you are a religious bigot too.
Reply-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just out of curiosity, spinner, exactly WHO said anything about religous bigotry? This man was teaching HIS OWN PERSONAL religious beliefs in a SCIENCE class. He even went so far as to burn (according to the child & the child's parents) a religious symbol on the student's arm.
Wanting this man fired is not religious bigotry; it's a matter of incompetence.
And, btw, I'm Liberal AND a Christian. My bigotry only extends as far as others trying to force their idea of Christianity on my through the gov't & public education system.
Reply-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I demand that Statues of Zeus be placed in science classrooms as well. Of course everyone knows the creator of all things was either Re, Amun, Ptah, Khnum or Aten, depending on which version of the creation your reading. (You do read hieroglyphs of course!) The heavens were represented by Hathor, Bat, and Horus. All these intelligent designers must be discussed as an alternative to actual biology so Americans can continue attempting to go backwards on that evolution of man chart. If we believe hard enough and give enough money to Joe Snakeoil the preacher eventually we will lose our opposable thumbs, have a tractor pull in the Garden of Eden, and be able to count how many pinheads are dancing on Anglers! Anyone who does not agree is a religious bigot. Mankind has over 2,850 deities each with their own pantheons and creation tales, certainly since
Spindave is not a religious bigot, he also wants each of their mythologies taught in the science classroom as well.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It isn't bigotry to call something what it is. ID is not science, full stop. Therefore, it is a waste of time, money and energy to try and get it taught as science.
Further, the film doesn't show a single person that was fired strictly for their professed belief in ID. Not one. So, who is really the hypocrite here?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA:
"There is not much room in science, although there is in history, religion, philosophy or sociology class, for jumping up and down and invoking god as the explanation of anything and everything. Could such an explanation be true? Sure. Is it science? Hardly. Does the movie get us anywhere close to understanding the difference? Not a bit.
Worse, those who embrace intelligent design â;; either the view that evidence of a designer's hand can be found in living things or that the creationism of the Bible is a valid account of how we came to exist â;; have to behave as if these accounts are subject to empirical disproof. But, think about it, Ben. Is that any way to save religion? Isn't the price of making faith into science and subject to empirical falsification heresy?"
I'd seriously put my own comment here, but I can't say it better.
Reply-
Neutral
StillUnashamed1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, I didn't say it the columnist did.
Science is about truth. However, that truth must be reproducible, falsifiable and quantifiable, therefore any discussion of a being called the "Creator" which can not be reproduced, can not be falsified and is, by definition (omniscient, omnipotent), unquantifiable is not science.
Am I being clear?
Reply-
Neutral
StillUnashamed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Can a living organism arise from non-living matter? (I may be mistaken but I think the term is "spontaneous generation".) Can that be reproduced or falsified? Yet that is the premise that non-theistic evolution is based upon. Evolutionists accept spontaneous generation of the first life form as truth even though that cannot be reproduced or falsified. Isn't that the question asked by Ben Stein? "Where did life come from?"
Is it possible to question the conclusions of scientific research without discussing the existance or non-existance of a higher power?
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In regards to abiogenesis, there is little concrete. However, science is perfectly willing to admit, "We don't know yet. We're working on it."
MIT has recently constructed organic molecules that self-replicate--an important step in understanding how life may have arisen from non-living matter. An article in Discover magazine a couple of months ago speculates that ice may have contributed greatly to the formation of a range of organic molecular chains.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course it is. Science does it all the time. I don't see your point.
There are competing theories about the origin of life. One of them is panspermia, where the 'seeds' of life arrived via meteors. Life may have been placed here by extra-terrestrials. Ultimately, it is up to the competing hypothesis to make its case.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It isn't. Evolution had Lamarckian as well as Darwinian evolution. Lamark's theory said that organisms passed on traits they gained during their lifetimes. Giraffe necks got longer and longer, the theory went, because giraffe indivuduals stretched their necks during their lives and passed those longer necks on to their progeny. No Lamarckian experiments ever worked as predicted (no matter how many generations of mice have their tails cut off, mice will continue to be born with tails).
There are people who posit 'guided panspermia'--that aliens are actively guiding the changes we see in organisms. The challenge is still the same: produce a better explanation that fits all the available evidence and provide predictions and confirming experiments. In short, do better science.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
StillUnashamed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, and I found the article you mentioned and I quote from it:
"It is not life itself, of course, but it is a kind of molecular model of how self-replication, a most fundamental life process, can occur."
As to your last sentence in the above post, I note the use of the words "speculates" and "may have." Not "conclude".
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I prefer to relegate 'truth' to the realms of logic, mathematics and, yes, religion. Science is the realm of 'fact'. I see it like this: All the evidence of science could consistently point to naturalistic origins and operation, yet there could still be a God behind it all fiddling with all the knobs. The former can indeed be 'factual' while that latter can be 'true'.
People tend to blur the epistemology when it is convenient to their argument. The facts of science are not 'proofs' against God, just as the faith in the miracles of the Bible are not 'facts' against science.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
While I am an atheist, I find little value in equating religion with 'crude superstition'.
That there is no evidence for religion is part of my point. Religion can never be factual. But then again, science can never be 'true', in the sense I've outlined above.
Reply -
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ah yes, the ol' absence of proof is not proof of absence. That is true, however finding no evidence of Zeus or Watusi certainly does not suggest to a reasonable mind that they exist either. As much as one may want to believe such a thing, there is no logical reason to do so. Basically the shameful fallacy being presented here is a minor variation on the classic argument to ignorance. "If you don't know how something happened, Zeus musta did it!" If this obvious flawed line of thought were followed by science, there would be no science. Of course some probably feel that would be jus' ducky!!!
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 7 months ago
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>I think it's an interesting debate to have
But NOT in a SCIENCE class. Intelligent Design is NOT science.
Being a Christian, I naturally believe in Creationism. That does NOT preclude my belief in evolution.
One is a philosophy; the other is science. To try to teach about a "supernatural being" as science is ludicrous - unless, of course, it's parapsychology.
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But tired old fallacy with new names challenge only one's patience and advance only ignorance.
I, like most, have no objection to religion being taught in a philosophy setting, or historical setting, or even it's books in a literature setting. Certainly a comparative religion class would be a setting for this mythology. However a science classroom is no setting for this whatsoever. There is nothing remotely scientific about it. And only in the US is there even an audience for this nonsense.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
dissent1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i have a problem with old and established ideas that are nothing more than social conventions reached by imposition and consensus shouting down anything new that may throw a spanner in the works of what we think reality is. but then science and religion have never much seen eye to eye.
science is really only just the honest curiosity of inquiring minds trying to understand how and why things work the way they do, but from religion's pov it's always been a contest for control in the belief that curiosity is unnecessary and possibly subversive. we're supposed to have all the answers we already need bound in black leather and written in medieval text, obscure and nonsensical as they are
Reply -
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
walden3, since ID is really a repackaged old idea (creationism), it's a stealth effort to fool the religiously indoctrinated or those ignorant about scientific method into questioning science.
Unfortunately, we will always have people like Ben Stein who are "intelligent" in some ways, so they and ignorant others (who commit the fallacy of false authority) assume Stein and ID proponents are bright in ways where they haven't a clue.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Interesting proposal Dionys. I'm curious what you would point to as an example of when science has been taught as religion. The core of science is endless skepticism, which would seem to counteract the very notion of it being force fed as dogma.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I believe that it *is* open to all ideas. Most especially to those ideas that have good, independently reviewed (peer-reviewed) empirical facts backing them up. Good science is always backed up and strengthened by valid data interpreted fairly and is especially strengthened when the interpretation is vetted by others in the same field.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I remember the cold fusion thing from several years ago. Even though the physics behind it were only marginally sound, the experimenters were given the opportunity to present their findings and have their work confirmed.
Unfortunately, no-one was able to duplicate their results.
Creationists are eager to point at hoaxes like Piltdown Man and Archeoraptor as failings of science. What they miss is that science discovered these as frauds.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Creationists feel that god-less evolution will instill a lack of morals in people, (creating a selfish live for today mentality), God-less evolutionists fear that Creationists will instill superstition that will slow down scientific progress. And BOTH are built upon faith since NO one was around to witness the first tick of time.
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, the evolutionists do not build anything upon faith. They exclusively use scientific method--observing, formulating hypotheses, testing them, raising them to the level of theories when they hold up to testing, and correcting them based on new evidence, or rejecting them when a preponderance of evidence warrants it.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The U.S. uses the null hypothesis in establishing evidence, but many other countries do not. So, for those countries, I would add that no scientific evidence for ID has ever been discovered, and thus it does not rise to the level of hypothesis.
The current push by creationists draws from argument similar to that used in a court of law to "persuade" judge and jury--the same courts that not-so-infrequently incarcerate innocent people and use gut feelings to sometimes get the guilty--all while there is inadequate "scientific" evidence.
The University of Chicago used mock courts a few years back to determine that your guilt or innocence in a court of law has little or nothing to do with your guilt or innocence. If you are well-dressed, well-groomed, tall, male, and good-looking, your chances of getting off are excellent, irrespective of the evidence presented.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
SFCGuyW1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is a debate that has no place in PUBLIC schools. Public schools are completely tax money supported, regulated by government & thus, barred from mixing religion into it's corriculum. School districts which do mix it into their curriculum face the possiblility of having to spend millions of little available tax dollars to defend something that cannot be defended. It is virtually guaranteed that someone would file a federal lawsuit. Families who want their children to learn 'intelligent design' shud enroll them in a church class, such as Sunday school. The only fair way to teach non-Darwin creation is to teach the ideas of every religion that exists in the USA - even if only one small group of people follow that said religion. To do anything else would mean gov't support of only the Christian religions - completely UnConstitutional.
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think a study of religion generally does have a place in public schools--as an elective humanities course that one can sign up for or avoid as one chooses. I'm an atheist, but I still took "The Bible as Literature" one quarter in high school honors English. It didn't change my beliefs, and was a very thought-provoking course.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
More FTA:
"Then, and most culpably in terms of the downright immorality of the movie and everyone associated with it, we are presented with what will happen if we keep teaching Darwinism in our schools. The logical consequence of Darwinism is Nazi eugenics!
No, I am not making this up. The core of the movie consists of a sequence in which Stein visits the former German psychiatric hospital at Hadamar where the mass sterilization and murder techniques were first perfected that were later to be used in the concentration camps. Then Ben heads to Dachau, where 35,000 people died. Stein finishes this sequence by bravely visiting a statue of Darwin where he stares the long deceased now marbleized evil-doer down while making it clear who is directly to blame for Hitler, the sterilization of tens of thousands of German children, the death of 6 million Jews and the deaths of countless other millions of victims of Nazism and those who died fighting the Nazi regime."
Reply-
-
Neutral
papageno1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would be worthwhile to read the article entitled "Never You Mine" in Scientific American. It begins by repeating the Darwin quote that Ben Stein uses to connect Darwin's ideas to Nazi horrors. The writer continues Darwin's excerpt beyond where Mr. Stein conveniently stops, thereby providing some fascinating insights.
Back in the day when people were trained to write with more rigor, a valid essay required the inclusion of both thesis and antithesis. Excerpt one half and you get the wrong part of the argument.
This is a very worthwhile read:
http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=61D...
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is a hideous example of the tactic of 'quote-mining'. It's in the standard play-book of most Creationists I have crossed paths with online. There is even a CD application available with all the 'go-to' quotes searchable by subject.
Reply -
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ben is an actor. He was a speech writer for the Nixon white house and still champions the Tricky Dicky! He has asserted that (former high school classmate) Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward "made up" deep throat for all these years, (silenced only when Mark Felt came forward and announced he was in fact the source, or Deep Throat.) Point being that Ben may be knowledgeable about some things, Law and business perhaps, he has been dead wrong about many other things. Though perhaps a good lawyer or actor, I don't see anything at all dealing with science in the man's credentials. Daniel Day Lewis is an excellent actor,(far better than Stein), but that does not mean his opinions about neuro-surgery should be given any credence whatsoever.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Intelligent design" is TOTALLY useless as a scientific hypothesis, CAN NOT be tested by the scientific method and is therefore NOT science.
To be useful, a hypothesis MUST be testable and should lead to predictions and hence new discoveries.
Darwin's theories ARE testable and DO to lead to new predictions and discoveries.
"Intelligent design" is NOT testable and has lead to nothing but this silly movie and an even sillier museum of creationism.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've always wondered--do you think it's ideology, or just an inability to use logic?
Of course, the leaders of the movement to teach ID as science have an agenda. But I'm afraid that most of those who subscribe to the idea that ID should be considered a scientific theory that competes in the same arena as evolution, either don't know what the scientific method is, or are incapable of using it.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's a particularly dangerous ideology that blames what the religious see as 'declining morals' directly on secularism.
Quoted from "The Wedge Strategy":
"Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."
Full text is available here:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
In short, these folks could give a rat's ass whether or not their science is sound. They're just looking for the 'perception' for reasonableness.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would add that it actually glorifies ignorance of the facts. A CBS interview went inside a FLDS home near El Dorado, TX, and Warren Jeffs' picture hung on the walls! Of course, Stockholm Syndrome is likely also operating in that situation.
Reply
-
-
-
-
OnionHeadComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Stein is a perfect example of an educated person who lacks the ability to reason. With a great command of unrelated facts and figures, he has managed to distill ignorance into a concentrated form of propgaganda that belongs, at best, on an early Sunday morning religious show.
According to his dubious form of logic, drilling holes in people's heads to cure headaches should also be taught in medical school as an effective alternative to the use of pharmaceuticals.
And after watching a few minutes of this documentary, you may consider head drilling too.
Reply-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ben Stein is a trivial pursuit king, and he understands persuasion, but science requires a different type of thinking.
I remember from personality studies, doctors generally have very different personalities from scientists. They may be very bright, but it manifests differently. Same with engineers.
And even among scientists, some are functionaries, while others are more theoretical. I read Behe, and thought "what a crackpot." Yet he's become the darling of the creationism/ID crowd.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would add that he has knowledge of law, not exactly a science. And has been dead wrong about many things, (he still defends Nixon, claimed there was no Deep throat-till Felt admitted he was the whistleblower.) The man is not "smart" about things outside of his sphere of expertise. Science for instance.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Another proud part of his pathetic elderly resume.
A has been who never was.
He really still is full of himself, isn't he?
The elite extremists are trying to pay him back for his years of cronyism by propping up his pathetic decrepit body and thrusting him upon Pop culture in a Tony Bennett and Leslie Nielsen kind of way.. The only difference is the former two had talent, and pop culture isn't that stupid.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"neo-con jews?"
midleft, are you or are you not a sock-puppet for some conservative who wants to make leftist-sounding rants ?
You seem to have no natural ability to be objective; no desire to question your words, and place no limitations on what you can say and be within the known truth.
You would be a good ID spokesman.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Has anybody seen this yet?
http://beta.coralridge.org/equip/PastorsPulpits...
Oh, it keeps getting better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ3Xq607780&feat...
Unbelievable.
Reply-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 7 months ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sharpton doesn't get propped up as a "spokesperson"..
he does all of the loonie stuff on his own.
Those others contemptible people are poster children for those who don't know better...
Does Al have a show on a major cable network???
Fox "PROMOTES" these hate mongers and would have built an entire wing for Morton Downey Jr..
Ann Coulter is a hateful, thrill seeker.
Hannity was a roofer with pretty hair that also knows how to stir up anger...Rush is the epitome of vitriol.
They are entertainers parading as "philosophical" leaders.
This is a very embarrassing time in American history.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wonder why it is that so many of the loons have TV and radio shows?>>>
Because Reagan began by deregulating the media, followed by Clinton, followed by bush. It was bought up by the religious wrong, and corporate America, who are CONS. In short, propaganda was born with deregulation.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In the early 1990s, Pat Robertson set out to take over the U.S. government and have "Christians" running our schools. And he's been somewhat successful, with people from Regents, Patrick Henry, Liberty, and other evangelical "colleges" filling a huge number of lower-level appointee positions in the Bush Administration.
They started off with school vouchers, using the Christian Coalition and shadow organizations (speakers from the Institute of Justice, for example) to make it look like poor black grassroots efforts were at work. Tommy Thompson was one of their key generals in the mid-1990s. The extension of faith-based funding with Sheperd Smith at the helm was another sign of their success.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Turkey also is falling down the slippery slope to Islam infiltrating government. We have definitely fallen down the slippery slope of fundamentalist Christianity since Bush came to power. And, no offense to Catholics, but they have far too much control of our Supreme Court now.
Both major parties tend to cherry-pick from the Constitution about what to support and what to undermine, and I'd like to see that stopped from both "sides."
Reply
-
-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Unfortunately, the head loon (Mr. Bush) is spending tens of Billions of tax payer dollars of his "faith-based-initiatives" such as abstinence-only "education" and abstinence approaches to the AIDS-problem in Africa (which receive 1/3 of the AIDS-education funds).
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
chevydog1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I guess I really don't know what intelligent design is. What I do know is that my religious tradition always accepted evolution as the way things happened. Then we marveled at the great power that made evolution possible. Never saw any conflict between science and religion. It was always "Those words in the Bible really don't mean what they seem to mean today; we really don't know what they mean." That's why they call it the Creation Myth.
But that was long ago, before movies like this tried to "enlighten" us.
Reply -
Neutral
KYRed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow. after watching the trailer for this movie I must say that Ben Stein is just as wretched as Michael Moore. Only that Stein didn't have to take people's words out of context. Still, a good entertaining move like Moore's. Ever seen Me and Roger? Great watch, I might add. Made me laugh a lot. Go Stein. I guess you didn't really think you would win an award with this one, though, did you? I love these faux documentaries. One day there will be college classes for students about documentaries and you and Moore will be items of interest as to how not to express the truth. Does anybody else think, like I do, that Stein and Moore have studied German propaganda films from the 30's and 40's?
Reply-
mackiemesserComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry;
Mr. Moore's movies are good.
And funny.
And above all, factual.
Anyone can rebut this dismal movie.
I have never seen a rebuttal of Fahrenheit 911 that went much farther than saying that he is fat and likes the French.
Don't try a right-handed swipe at Moore by saying Stein's stuff is in the same species level; not.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Lightning and thunder were once understood to be part of intelligent design as well. The Romans KNEW them to be signs of Jove's anger. The ancients knew that sickness was caused by witches casting curses or the anger of the gods. Some parts of the "intelligent design" myth die harder than others.
Most of those who insist that the "theory" of intelligent design be taught alongside the theory of evolution have no earthly understanding of what "theory" means in scientific terms. It is NOT synonymous with "hunch". A few intelligent designers are actually scientists and know very well that the word "theory" can't rationally be applied to their explanation of the origin of the species. But they also understand the politics of dumb-down in play in America and know which side their bread is buttered on.
Reply-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I should add that I am not dismissing the possibility that there really is an Intelligent Designer, and that His hand is seen in all life? I mean only by the above that believing such is believing, having faith. There isn't a shred of scientific evidence on which to base such a belief, so it ain't science.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
spdde1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We all start our beliefs with certain presuppositions, which are ideas expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence, or put another way, it is a supposition made prior to having knowledge. When we apply this presupposition and logic to what is written in Genesis, we understand the facts and events stated as real. We then use this knowledge to explain and hypothesize the evidences we observe around us. Our Religion is fundamental to our presuppositions.
Evolutionists have the same presuppositional nature when their theories are examined. They start with the basis of no god or at least not one involved with special creation as described in book of Genesis. They then use their presupposition to interpret the same evidences to put forth their evolution theory. The manner in which they proclaim this theory as fact is in itself their religion. The Webster's dictionary defines religion as a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
Reply-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
spdde, you have totally missed the crucial point that differentiates your two examples.
When people who take the King James version of Genesis as their starting point run into trouble with their hypothesis, they refine the hypothesis by invoking the power of God. That is, they change the rules to fit their preconceived idea.
When people who take Darwin's hypothesis as their starting point run into trouble, they refine their hypothesis ONLY with the known laws of the universe.
If one is free to invent new laws of the universe under the guise that "God is all powerful and can change the laws at her whim" then ANY hypothesis is equally likely to be true - including life starting with spaghetti (pastafarianism).
Reply -
-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
These anti evolutionists without exception have no understanding of what evolution actually is. It merely is an explanation of observed changes in biological traits over time. It in itself makes no claims of Jupiter did it or Zeus did not. It is the fact that science has found no evidence of sky dudes that infuriates the bible thumpers. Evolution has nothing to do with creation one way or another. Creationists insist it does because they believe what they are told by their "leaders". They have been ill informed to say the least and have not really read any scholarly work in the field.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is not entirely the case. Science grew up in an environment steeped in God and included such concepts ans Formal and Final Causation that speculated as to the 'meaning' or 'purpose' of a particular phenomenon. In its infancy, science started with the presupposition of God. It was only when the church started to realize that science was continually narrowing the 'gaps' that God was supposed to fill that Formal and Final causation were removed from scientific inquiry. Basically, science and philosophy became separate disciplines.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
KMFDM1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well we all know why Ben Stein is constantly using Clear Eyes. He is smoking some serious $#@!
Where does live ultimately come from?
Ha, You dont have a percise answers, just logical theories.
Therefore since you dont know, I sujest that we replace your logical theories with my theology!
Reply-
Neutral
spdde1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am reminiscent of my struggle with evolution vs. creation. I thought about it in hindsight once I accepted creation. That it was by order of learning that I accepted evolution over creation (I was taught evolution before I learned of creation). It was then I realized that what ever a person is taught first is up held by that person as truth, in logic and in defense. I would suppose the amount of respect one places on the teacher has a factor in this also. It is not until a person has sufficient time exposed to, and subsequent investigation of, new ideas that they can realize that teachers are human and subject to the level of ideas and theories they themselves are taught in the learning process. It is only then by a preponderance of the evidence that one can accept new ideas and paths of thought. The radioisotope dating techniques used to prove the ages of most everything not observed is faulty, and has many assumptions. The fossils are a result of the global flood in Genesis.
Reply-
Neutral
KMFDM1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL, fossils that are over millions of years old are a result of a flood that happened by biblical scholars no later than 30,000 years at the most. To date, even the scientist that attempt to come up with theories how a global flood could have happened, amit, that there is no proof that a global flood. At most, there was a major flood in the area of the middle east, modern day Iraq, and surrounding ereas. That and the biblical story of Noahs ark is more than likely a copy of Gigamesh's Adventures.
Reply -
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The radioisotope dating techniques used to prove the ages of most everything not observed is faulty, and has many assumptions." I'd like to see your supporting evidence here. Dating errors do arise from time to time, but are usually the result of a contaminated sample or improper gathering techniques. Dates are also corroborated from different sources such as tree rings and ice cores.
"The fossils are a result of the global flood in Genesis." This statement doesn't stand up to even the most cursory scientific examination.
Try this one: If all fossils were buried in a single event, why don't they all show the same isochron dating and degree of mineralization?
Reply -
Neutral
Helixbuilder1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
spdde "It was then I realized that what ever a person is taught first is up held by that person as truth"
Not so, I was taught creationism during catholic school. However when it came to science and the physical evidence, I found the evidence was overwhelmingly in favor of evolution.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You dont see Scientist going into churches and pushing evolution.
Please stop going into our schools and pushing religion."
You do however see plenty of Scientists going around writing about how there's no scientific proof of God. You do see scientists pushing Atheism, which frankly has nothing to do with science.
Perhaps when you stop pushing Science as an alternative to Religion and stop pushing people to drop their beliefs simply because you do not believe they will stop pushing religion into the same spheres you inhabit. Then again they may not, but at least then you can have the ethical upper hand.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You do however see plenty of Scientists going around writing about how there's no scientific proof of God. You do see scientists pushing Atheism, which frankly has nothing to do with science."
That's free speech for ya. The point is the pushing of religion in public schools and the use of religion to set government policy.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
KMFDM1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For all you people that think that science is a religion and is only real if you believe in it, please step to the edge of a clift. The theory of gravity is only a theory, and if you dont really believe in it, you should be ok if you step over the edge of the clift.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
jesh1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have not seen the movie so I can not comment on that but the story was so slanted I had to put my monitor on its side to read it . science is by definition doing something over and over again noting the result and proving theory's of natural laws and how they react .if the beginning of life started with a big bang could an explosion bring order ? or does it make sense that someone planed it and put it in order . Darwin's theory is just that a theory [ although some fight so fiercely for it you would think it were there religion . some of Darwin's theory has proven to have solid evidence and some of it has little if any proof . the origins of the beginning of life is where Darwin's theory falls apart and can not be proven scientifically ,despite popular opinion the intelligent design does have scientific proof for its beliefs especialy in area of the origins of life . check out darwins black box an excelent book
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Evolution is not ABOUT the origin of life. Evolution is about how organisms change over time. If you're arguing about abiogenesis, sure, there's a lot less certainty and a great deal more speculation.
What sort of 'scientific proof' does ID have to offer?
Reply -
Neutral
Helixbuilder1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
'Darwin's Black Box' is crap. See the detailed review at Talk Origins. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Behe just piles one flawed idea on top of another, never bothering to concern himself with scientific hypothesis testing. He actually turns fallacies into an art-form. I would consider it amusing if the president of the United States didn't agree with him. Instead, it's tragic.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
SFCGuyW1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As of 2001 there were over 313 main religions in the USA and many more denominations and offshoots of these religions. There are thousands of different religion and denominations throughout the world and many of these are imported to the USA by immigrants.
If public schools want to teach other than evolution they would have to teach the beliefs of each & every religion or face violating the US Constitution. Do you want you child to learn that one God exists & who is that particular God, or maybe that many Gods exist, or spirits in place of God, or that man himself is a God, or that the Earth is Godlike, or that no God exists, or that the elements are the Gods of the Earth, or aliens are our Gods, etc. etc. etc.? Christianity's view of creation cannot, must not be the only one taught if we are to be a free people in a nation controlled by ALL of the people.
Reply -
Neutral
saneman1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I used to watch Ben's game show. It was funny when Jimmy Kimmel was on it. The problem is, although Ben is (supposedly) pretty smart, he has some notions stuck in his head that apparently will NOT yield to logic. "Intelligent design" isn't really even a theory; there isn't any real evidence to support it. None. Whatsoever. It's more an idea, or maybe a tale. The word "theory" belongs in a rational discussion with ideas that can be demonstrated with evidence. THEORY: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world;..." There is NO substantiation for "intelligent design." It shouldn't be TAUGHT in any public school in ANY class. Sunday school - OK, if you want to - go ahead and mix it in with the other stories and tales. Anyone with sense would then realize it was just a fictional "tale."
Reply -
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I doubt this movie can be called a documentary. I haven't seen it. I suspect it is a feel good movie for religious creationists. C'mon, let them have their movie too. I believe in evoution and am not religious. Death Wish (not a documentary) was one of my favorite movies and yet I would never consider going out and wasting every criminal I come across (although sometimes I wish I could).
I think many deeply religious people need their beliefs and would be lost without them. It's human nature. Let them have this. I don't mind as long as they don't drag me kicking and screaming to church every Sunday.
To say the profs who were fired because they strayed from their subject matter is to ignore the well known fact that a lot of profs do this in a political way today and they're not fired. Far from it, they often are hired or kept because of their (liberal) inclinations. If I had an anthropology professor teaching creationism, I would fire him too.
Reply -
Neutral
StillUnashamed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have researched the question asked by Stein, "Where did life come from?" and can't find the answer but here's some of what I found:
R. C. Lewontin http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact....
It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old.
It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old.
It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past.
It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living.
It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms.
The last stated FACT is indeed not a fact by the evolutionist's own admission. Tracing backwards, one must at some point conclude that a living form came from a non-living form. I have no problem with the facts presented. I do have a problem with the assumptions derived from those facts.
Reply-
Neutral
StillUnashamed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And, David Berlinski, the author most recently of Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics http://www.discovery.org/a/3209
"At the conclusion of a long essay, it is customary to summarize what has been learned. In the present case, I suspect it would be more prudent to recall how much has been assumed:
First, that the pre-biotic atmosphere was chemically reductive; second, that nature found a way to synthesize cytosine; third, that nature also found a way to synthesize ribose; fourth, that nature found the means to assemble nucleotides into polynucleotides; fifth, that nature discovered a self-replicating molecule; and sixth, that having done all that, nature promoted a self-replicating molecule into a full system of coded chemistry.
These assumptions are not only vexing but progressively so, ending in a serious impediment to thought."
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This seems to reduce to an argument from incredulity. The author simply cannot believe these things could have ever occurred in any circumstance whatsoever. He is certainly entitled to his opinion, but as to the content of his conclusion, it seems science is moving on without him. His fifth point about a self-replicating molecule has partially been answered by the recent MIT discovery I mentioned in an earlier response.
One wonders what this gentleman expects science to do. Agree with him and stop working on it?
Reply-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
''His fifth point about a self-replicating molecule has partially been answered by the recent MIT discovery I mentioned in an earlier response.''
if you're speaking of the experiments in a previous post of yours, I feel compelled to ask, does a heavily orchestrated and supervised experiment done by men in white coats really show that life spontaneously organized in a natural unsupervised setting pre-men in white coats?
some clever creationist could even twist that for his cause, and say, see? Some intelligent life form has to guide and facilitate the process.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You've hit on the 'brick wall' of the Creationist argument string regarding abiogenesis. A lab could indeed succeed in making a primitive cell 'from scratch' using only materials and conditions present on an ancient Earth and of course Creationists would come to the conclusion that life MUST therefore have intelligent intervention.
It's a no-win scenario with some people.
In regards to the MIT experiment, self-replicating molecules have been theoretical until recently, but acknowledged as an extremely important step in the emergence of life. Now they have been made, the next step is to see if they can form in primeval Earth conditions.
Reply-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
so in answer to my question, do you yourself think that any lab experiment presided over, even by very 'uninvolved' and scrupulous men, be considered proof that life could have organized and self-replicated spontaneously of itself at a time when no men existed?
I'm not a scientist and don't know if this criteria is enough for the scientific community to say, 'there ya go', or would it merely be considered an example of how 'we' could have happened?
Reply-
Neutral
StillUnashamed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The point I'd like to make is that at this time scientists cannot produce organic life from inorganic matterial and they admit that they do not know how it happened that first time, only speculations and guesses. Yet they believe (have faith?) that one day science will suceed in producing organic life from inorganic matterial. They also believe (have faith?) that the first living organism did spring from inorganic matter.
BTW from the MIT Discover article Tangent referred to: "It is not life itself, of course, but it is a kind of molecular model of how self-replication, a most fundamental life process, can occur."
Reply-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
well I think Tangent said: ''the next step is to see if they can form in primeval Earth conditions.''
so this 'creating' or showing that molecular replication can occur 'from scratch' as Tangent says, is merely the first step
I was merely considering the rhetorical implications of a successful and completed example of 'spontaneous' life from life in a lab
If the scientists goal is really to show definitively how life happened eons ago, I think they can quit right now, but if they merely want to show its possible or are merely motivated by curiosity and not 'proving' anything, then I say keep it going. It will be fascinating to see the results.
Sometimes I think creationists get a little egocentric and think the sun revolves around them and they think all the stuff science does is merely to mess with them
also is absence of proof proof if these scientists can't show how life happened eons ago?
what is it Rummy said? The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence...
Reply -
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It doesn't simply amount to 'speculation and guesses'. Theories of abiogenesis have plenty of chemistry behind them. 'Guesses' are rooted in the way science understands how molecules react. They generally have sequential models based on materials likely present and the state of the environment at the time. The 'belief' that answers will become more and more clear is based on progress made so far, the soundness of the theories themselves, and new technologies (and hopefully funding) that will enhance inquiry.
As to your second point regarding the MIT discovery, I never claimed otherwise.
Reply -
Neutral
Helixbuilder1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
StillUnashammed, you are are delusional and have no qualms at revealing your scientific ignorance, any molecule containing carbon is classified as organic. All organic chemical reactions can take place without intervention from any one. Take a class.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll restate: science is not about proof, it's about evidence and the rational interpretation thereof. If life from non-life was achieved in a lab, that would support the theory of abiogenesis, but would not be 'proof' of it, even in an empirical sense. The first complex organic molecules could have been deposited by a meteor, or could have been 'poofed' into existence by God.
To a certain extent, as evidence mounts science will tend to say 'there ya go', as it generally has with evolution. The process is still open to challenges, but the evidence better be pretty damn good.
Reply-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I thought science's goal was finding out facts about the natural world by compiling proo-uh, compelling test results from which to reach a conclusion?
so I take it then your answer is 'no' to my question?
so the long term goal of science is not proving a theory?
you'll have to be patient with me, science is not something I've studied
BTW if finding fact or proving a theory is not the goal of the abiogenesis experiments, what is? just random data gathering? doing cool stuff? --because that sounds pretty neat to me, very Frankenstein-y
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Intelligent Design as Science is pure folly. Its an attempt by the religious wack-nuts to turn our educational system into madrasses. I always laugh at the righties when they point to the Islamic schools as indioctrination clinics when that is exactly the same thing they want to do with our schools here.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Redneck1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA: "The definition of what science is and what should be taught as science in a world in which Asia and Europe are itching to clean our economic clocks by seeing us throw away our considerable lead in synthetic biology, genomics, agriculture and the biomedical, oceanographic, geological and energy sciences escapes Stein and his producers."
Ridiculous conclusion!!!
Reply -
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I saw this movie, and enjoyed it. It was fun seeing Stein do a Michael Moore on Dawkins to the point where Dawkins accepts the possibility OF intelligent design. He also did a great job of showing how many scientists take to evolution the way the religious do with their belief in God.
Reply -
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's a video on the history of religion--I think it's a popcorn moment.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-110907...
Reply -
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Kville, this 13 minute video is for you. I had to dig to find it again, but I think it's well worth watching.
http://science.propeller.com/story/2008/04/23/z...
Reply -
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Richard Dawkins and other scientists were bamboozled into doing this movie. They were approached with doing interviews for a movie called 'Crossroads' about the intersection between science and religion. The producers later claimed 'Crossroads' was the original title but the project became the movie 'Expelled' as they gradually uncovered all this sinister censoring stuff (insert creepy music here) going on.
Fair enough. Why then did the production team reserve the web address for www.expelledthemovie.com months BEFORE they did these interviews. Why did they NEVER reserve www.crossroadsthemovie.com?
Reply -
Neutral
cmmndrblu1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If ID were actually scientific, why do it's proponents distort information? Abiogenesis is not the same as spontaneous generation. Secondly, why is it at all surprising that organic matter should arise from matter? It's only astounding because of the side that we're on.Repeating processes which occur due to laws, not chance, happen throughout the universe. The formation of organic life from in organic materials is based on chemical laws, not random chance. Furthermore WHY should any of this mean that meaning is being taken away from the universe? It's not meaning that's being destroyed, it's just an outdated cosmology that's changing
Reply -
Neutral
Natureboy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Damn right.
Lets have a byebul curriculum in science.
Astronomy - The sun revolves around the earth, just like the byebul says.
Chemistry - fire and brimstone is all ya need to know
Paleontology - the earth is 5,000 years old, and the fossil record is a tool of the devil placed here to deceive the faithful.
Yeah, let's be "open minded."
Reply -
-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
KvilleTx,
Your comments might be more productive if you either respond to one of the well reasoned comment here or present a well reasoned comment of your own.
A list of rants and arbitrary names (even if in upper case) is not very persuasive
Reply -
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm all for competing theories. That's what science is all about.
ID is simply NOT a theory. It is a conclusion based on the unsupported idea of 'Irreducible Complexity'. Until ID has something more substantive than an argument from incredulity to bring to the table, teaching ID in a science class is like teaching air guitar in a music class.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What passes for education in Kville is what is sad. Why not tell kids 2 plus 2 equals 5, it is the opinion of someone who does not understand math and they demand it be taught in math class. You are censoring if you don't let crackpot math compete with actual math in math class. Should I type it in all caps to annoy more? Those communists who won't admit 2 plus 2 equal 5 are not broad minded!
(Sarcasm off).
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.