Expelled No Intelligence Allowed DVD

[BDMinus]

I just watched this last night. Its a documentary about the Darwinism/Intelligent Design controversy and the censoring/censuring of ID proponents in the academic community hosted by Ben Stein. I thought it was good, maybe a bit overdramatic sometimes. I recommend it for viewing if you haven't seen it yet. It runs about a hour and a half.

 

[linx05]

I wonder how much fluff is in this movie?

Waste of time...

 

[Karkas]

I've been wanting to watch it but can't find it anywhere... its out on DVD now?

 

[BDMinus]

Yes its out on dvd, I rented it from a Redbox dvd kiosk. Larger rental chains will probably have it, check Blockbuster.

 

[Clams]

I never saw where the 2 theories were mutually exclusive.
Were I an omnipotent being that wanted to design somehting to survive the ages..... I'd build in an ever evolving, self-correcting algorithm into the DNA formula.

There are people that want/need something to fight about......

-W

 

[BDMinus]

Towards the end when Richard Dawkins said something about an advanced alien civilization could have designed life and seeded earth with it, or something like that, made me laugh. aliens? no problem.. incredibly improbable random convergence of amino acids forming the first self replicating protein? sure.. but a divine creator? no way :doh:

I also find it funny that science explains the origin of the universe as a "big bang" where essentially an infinitely dense singularity exploded and expanded to create the universe... last time i checked, black holes don't explode, which is what an infinitely dense singularity would be.

 

[linx05]

Towards the end when Richard Dawkins said something about an advanced alien civilization could have designed life and seeded earth with it, or something like that, made me laugh. aliens? no problem.. incredibly improbable random convergence of amino acids forming the first self replicating protein? sure.. but a divine creator? no way :doh:

I also find it funny that science explains the origin of the universe as a "big bang" where essentially an infinitely dense singularity exploded and expanded to create the universe... last time i checked, black holes don't explode, which is what an infinitely dense singularity would be.

Science has brought a lot of evidence to the table when it comes to Evolution and The Big Bang. They are both recognised in all authentic scientific communities.

An article I read earlier: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/60/95O56/index.xml?section=topstories

 

[BDMinus]

Both sides bring evidence for their theories, and both sides dismiss the others' evidence and neither side wants to be wrong so the debate continues. Debate is good though, it can motivate research that brings about new understanding.

 

[linx05]

But there is no evidence for creationism. It all falls back on a God which cannot be proven by Science. The best understanding we have about the universe and our beginnings can only be told through Science.

 

[andy o]

Just found this post. I HAVE to post something now! I have much to say about science, religion and the dishonesty of the ID movement, but I don't wanna get into it here at Slysoft. I'd just want to point out that there's NO CONTROVERSY whatsoever in the scientific community about evolution. It happened. MOUNTS of evidence. ALL other natural sciences support it, and each other. Period. "Theory" of Evolution? "Theory" of gravity. SAME thing. People don't seem to grasp the concept of a scientific theory. It is not "hypothesis". It is an accumulation of observed, measured and experimented facts. The so-called "controversy" is solely in the minds of the public (and pretty much only the American one at that, in modern countries).

Probably the most "respectable" scientist that IDists have is Michale Behe. He's been put down again and again. Ken Miller is a devout catholic, and regardless he's one of the scientific educator heroes that have defended evolution, especially at the Dover trial. He put down swiftly Behe's "irreducible complexity" there, not that any other biologist already doesn't know it's fluff.

Now, you don't have to believe me. Read science books, read science magazines, read what the AAAS and NCSE have to say about this. There's no conspiracy. I've been following evolution and creationism since it caught my attention about the time of the Dover trial, because being an immigrant (from a third-world country at that), it SO MUCH surprised me that in the U.S. supposedly at the scientific frontlines, a great number of people still denied evolution and thought there was a "controversy".

Read about how the ID movement started from creationism. Read about the drafts of "Of Pandas and People" that only substituted the word "creationism" for "Intelligent Design" and "creator" for "designer" after a lost trial where the judge deemed creationism a religious point of view. Google "cdesign proponentsists" and read the hilarious, ironic story behind that (the cdesign proponentsist is the "missing link" between creationists and intelligent design proponents).

Read about how the Discovery Institute (the ID "think" tank) put out a list with about a hundred scientists, most of whom weren't biologists or even had anything to do with being experts on physical sciences, that supposedly backed ID, with a misleading statement too. Read about the hilarious, but right to the point, reaction of the NCSE, "Project Steve".

Finally, Expelled is a ludicrous, horrendous poor piece of propaganda. Read it from an educated non-scientist, recognizable film critic. Whatever you think of Ebert's reviews, he's always honest and open minded. Come on, the Nazi shots right after Dawkins or PZ Myers spoke should have given you a hint. Or how they mislead Dawkins, PZ, Eugenie Scott and others into believing it was something else of a documentary. Or how they "expelled" PZ Myers from one of the screenings, which he actually made a reservation for, like every other "guest". They tried to spin it saying that it was a lesson for him to be "expelled", but guess who was his invited guest, also on the list? The devil himself, Richard Dawkins! Who, by the way, did get to see the movie.

Or How they said it was gonna be named "Crossroads", even had a website with that name on, then changed the name to "Expelled", and when confronted about it they said they didn't know it was gonna be named that, Crossroads was just a "working title" anyway. But, they registered the "expelled" domain BEFORE the interviews took place!

Whoo, I guess I'm a little bored on this new year. I just had to say something! Luckily I didn't go too much into it!

 

[DrinkLyeAndDie]

I found the movie quite interesting. I watched it a few weeks back and forgot to post after I had.

Discussion is fine but this topic needs to be approached with care. We don't need any debates on which side is right or wrong.

 

[andy o]

We don't need any debates on which side is right or wrong.

If you really pay attention (I have been for years), the only people pounding and pounding about there being a "debate" are non-scientists, ID proponents, most of whom are very christian. It's a campaign of misinformation. There's no debate between physical scientists. Evolution happened. We can talk fossils, geographical distribution of species and so on, but the definitive definitive definitive definitive evidence comes from molecular biology.

Also, if we must debate a creator (I personally don't feel the need to, but most people do), creationists should be attacking abiogenesis, not evolution. Abiogenesis is the scientific discipline that has less evidence of what exactly occurred. It's not as catchy as attacking "evolution", though.

 

[Webslinger]

Anyone wishing to argue in this thread, should keep this in mind.

http://forum.slysoft.com/showthread.php?t=4

"While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or inflammatory posts. Our decision is final in these matters."

oliceman:

 

[andy o]

Sorry, was I being rude ? Anyway, I just felt I needed to say something hehe. Probably said too much.

 

[Webslinger]

Sorry, was I being rude

No. I'm just stating that anyone wishing to debate should keep that forum rule in mind.

 

[BDMinus]

But there is no evidence for creationism. It all falls back on a God which cannot be proven by Science. The best understanding we have about the universe and our beginnings can only be told through Science.

There is evidence for creationism, but it is not acceptable to science. Any argument that is brought is countered with something on the lines of "thats' not proof".

p.s. I'm still waiting to be told how a black hole can expand to form a universe BTW.

 

[mmdavis]

Something from Nothing

Personally, I've always wondered how "science" can say that nothing exploded and caused the Big Bang. Which idea is easier to believe? Either way, the Big Bang happened. You believe that the universe was created from nothing by nothing, or you believe it was created by God. It is a matter of who/Whom you believe, period. And while I personally would love to debate the issue, I do not feel the SlySoft forum is the proper place as this subject cannot be proved, it is a matter of belief.

 

[hhh]

I'm still waiting to be told how a black hole can expand to form a universe BTW.

Please, just because you don't understand it, does not make it false.
I don't understand most of Albert Einstein's work, but that does not make me think it's false.

What I do know about, is the scientific method the movie tries so hard to put down. And I have to say it's the dumbest crap I have seen in a VERY long time. I enjoy good discussions about the topic, but if I where a creationist, I would be ashamed to share views with the creators of this movie. It's really that unintelligent. Not even worth a rent.

 

[Feynor]

"Theory" of Evolution? "Theory" of gravity. SAME thing. People don't seem to grasp the concept of a scientific theory.

I agree that Slysoft is not to place to try to form a battle ground for the ID proponents.

However I must point out that as far as I understand it, the Theory of Evolution is actually better understood and supported by evidence, than the Theory of gravity. Why? Though both are equally supported by observations (animals change to counter alterations in their environment: Observed, A stone falls to the ground: Observed), we actually don't know exactly HOW gravity works (the hopes are high that the LHC can help us understand that one). In contrast Evolution is confirmed, and understood.

BDMinus, you are quote mining Dawkins there. He was asked IF it was possible that aliens could have brought life to earth. It is not something that we can disprove, however there are NO evidence to support such a claim.
It is very unlikely, but it is not impossible.
Did a super being bring life to Earth?
Same answer, It is not something that we can disprove, however there are NO evidence to support such a claim.

In both instances, we can not entertain the notion scientifically, until there actually are evidence to suggest this happening. If I claim to have seen an invisible pink unicorn outside my windows, it is up to me to provide the proof for this, no one will or should waste any time 'disproving' the claim, until I can provide any form of solid evidence. In fact, were I to make that claim, and be adamant about it, the only scientists who would be interested in my case, would be the psychiatrists at the local mental institution.

Is there a blue teapot floating around in space?
It is very unlikely, but it is not impossible. (Even NASA have a sense of humour).

 

[linx05]

There is evidence for creationism, but it is not acceptable to science. Any argument that is brought is countered with something on the lines of "thats' not proof".

If it can't be proven scientifically then there is no evidence.